= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Ghatanathoah comments on Wanting to Want - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (185)
That's true, but I think that human values are so complex that any attempt to compress morality into one sentence is pretty much obligated to be vague.
One rather obvious rejoinder is that there are currently hundreds, if not thousands of children who are in the same state as the unfortunate Omelasian right now in real life, so reducing the number to just one child would be a huge improvement. But you are right that even one seems too many.
A more robust possibility might be to add "equality" to the list of the "good things in life." If you do that then Omelas might be morally suboptimal because the vast inequality between the child and the rest of the inhabitants might overwhelm the achievement of the other positive values. Now, valuing equality for its own sake might add other problems, but these could probably be avoided if you were sufficiently precise and rigorous in defining equality.
I think the best explanation I've seem is something like the metaethics Eliezer espouses, which is (if I understand them correctly), that morality is a series of internally consistent concepts related to achieving what I called "the goods things in life," and that human beings (those who are not sociopaths anyway) care a lot about these concepts of wellbeing and want to follow and fulfill them.
In other words, morality is like mathematics in some ways, it generates consistent answers(on the topic of people's wellbeing) that are objectively correct. But it is not like the Anti-Life Equation because it is not intrinsically motivating. Humans care about morality because of our consciences and our positive emotions, not because it is universally compelling.
To put it another way, I think that if you were to give a superintelligent paperclipper a detailed description of human moral concepts and offered to help it make some more paperclips if it elucidated these concepts for you, that it would probably generate a lot of morally correct answers. It would feel no motivation to obey these answers of course, since it doesn't care about morality, it cares about making paperclips.
This is a little like morality being "embedded in the human psyche" in the sense that the desire to care about morality is certainly embedded in their somewhere (probably in the part we label "conscience"). But it is also objective in the sense that moral concepts are internally consistent independent of the desires of the mind. To use the Pebblesorter metaphor again, caring about sorting pebbles into prime numbered heaps is "embedded in the Pebblesorter psyche," but which numbers are prime is objective.
That's certainly true, but that simply means that humans are capably of caring about other things besides morality, and these other things that people sometimes care about can be pretty bad. This obviously makes moral reasoning a lot harder, since it's possible that one of your darker urges might be masquerading as a moral judgement. But that just means that moral reasoning is really hard to do, it doesn't mean that it's wrong in principle.
Vague or flawed. Given those options, I think I'd prefer vague.
I agree completely. If I had any idea how Omelas worked, I might be tempted to try seeing if any of those ideas could be used to improve current societies.
Hmmm. To avoid Omelas, equality would have to be fairly heavily weighted; any finite weighting given to equality, however, will simply mean that Omelas is only possible given a sufficiently large population (by balancing the cost of the inequality with the extra happiness of the extra inhabitants).
Personally, I think that valuing equality itself is a good idea, if mixed in with a suitable set of other values; one possible failure mode for overvaluing equality is an equality of wretchedness, a state of "we're all equal because we all have nothing and no hope" (this is counteracted by providing suitable weights for the other good things, like happiness and the freedom to try to achieve goals (but what about the goal of vengeance? For a real slight? An imagined slight?)).
An example of a society failing due to an over-reliance on equality, is France shortly after the French Revolution.
I think that I should read through that entire sequence in the near future. I'd like to see his take on metaethics.
Huh. I think we're defining 'morality' slightly differently here.
My definition of 'morality' would be 'a set of rules, decided by some system, such that one can feed in a given action and (usually) get out whether that action was a good or a bad action'. Implicit in that definition is the idea that two people may disagree on what those rules actually are - that there might be better or worse moralities, and that therefore the answers given by a randomly chosen morality need not be objectively correct.
To take an example; certain ancient cultures may have had the belief that human sacrifice was necessary, on Midwinter's Day, to persuade summer to come back and let the crops grow. In such a culture, strapping someone down and killing them in a particularly painful way may have been considered the right thing to do; and a member of that society would argue for it on the basis that the tribe needs the crops to grow next year (and, if selected, might even walk up voluntarily to be killed). In his morality, these annual deaths are a good thing, because they make the crops grow; in my morality, these annual deaths are a bad thing, and moreover, they don't make the crops grow.
For what it's worth, I do agree with you that getting the result out of a moral system does not, in and of itself, force an intrinsic motivation to follow that course of action; people can be trained from a young age to feel that motivation, and many people are, but there's really no reason to assume that it is always there.
If there is an objectively correct morality, that can apply to all situations, then I don't know what it is - my current system of morality (based heavily on the biblical principal of 'Love thy neighbour') covers many situations, but is not good at the average villain's sadistic choice (where I can save the lives of group A or group B but not both)
Hmmm. A lot of the darkness in the human psyche can be explained in this manner; but I'd think that there are other parts which cannot be explained in this way (when a person goes out of his way to hurt someone that he'll likely never see again, for example). A lot of these, I'd think, are attributable to a lack of empathy; a person who sees other people as non-people (or as Not True People, for some self-including definition of True People).
I think a possible solution would be to have equality and the other values have diminishing returns relative to each other. So in a society with a lot of other good things there is a great obligation to increase equality, whereas in a society with lots of suffering people it's more important to do whatever it takes raise the general level of happiness and not worry as much about equality. So a place as wondrous as Omelas would have a great obligation to help the child.
I think one possible way to frame equality to avoid this is to imagine, metaphorically, that positive things give a society "morality points" and negative things give it "negative morality points." Then have it so that a positive deed that also decreases equality gets "extra points," while a negative deed that also exasperates inequality gets "extra negative points." So in other words, helping the rich isn't bad, it's just much less good than helping the poor.
This also avoids another failure mode: Imagine an action that hurts every single person in the world, and hurts the rich 10 times as much as it hurts the poor. Such an action would increase equality, but praising it seems insane. Under the system I proposed such an action would still count as "bad," though it would be a bit less bad than a bad action that also increased inequality.
I don't think that's that different from what I'm saying, I may be explaining it poorly. I do think that morality is essentially like a set of rules or an equation that one uses to evaluate actions. And I consider it objective in that the same equation should produce the same result each time an identical action is fed into it, regardless of what entity is doing the feeding. Then it is up to our moral emotions to motivate us to take actions the equation would label as "good."
Describing it like that sounds a bit clinical though, so I'd like to emphasize that moral rules and equations, are ultimately about people's wellbeing and increasing the good things in life. If you feed an action that improves these values into a rule-set and it comes out labelled "bad" then those rules probably don't even deserve to be called morality, they are some other completely different concept.
This relates to Eliezer's metaethics again, he basically describes morality as an equation or "fixed computation" related to wellbeing that is so complex that it's impossible to wrap your mind about it, so you have to work in approximations. So what you would label a "better" morality is one that more closely resembles the "ideal equation."
It seems to me that this is more a disagreement about certain facts of nature than about morality per se. It seems to me that if there really was some sort of malevolent supernatural entity that wouldn't let summer come unless you made sacrifices to it, and it was impossible to stop such an entity, that sacrificing to it might be the only option left. If the choice is "everyone dies of starvation" vs. "one person dies from being sacrificed, everyone else lives" it seems like any worthwhile set of moral rules would label the second option as the better one (though it would not be nearly as good as somehow stopping the entity). The reason that sacrificing people is bad is because such entities do not exist, so such a sacrifice tortures someone, but doesn't save anyone elses' life.
I think the problem is that an objectively correct set of moral rules that could perfectly evaluate any situation would be so complicated no one would be able to use it effectively. Even if we obtained such a system we would have to use crude approximations until we managed to get a supercomputer big enough to do the calculations in a timely manner.
I count empathy as one of the "moral emotions" that motivates people to act morally. So a lack of empathy would be a type of lack of motivation towards moral behavior.
That seems to work very well. So the ethical weight of a factor can be proportional to the reciprocal thereof (perhaps with a sign change). Then, for any number of people, there is a maximum happiness-factor that the equation can produce.
So. This can be used to make an equation that makes Omelas bad for any sized population. But not everyone agrees that Omelas is bad in the first place; so is that necessarily an improvement to your ethical equation?
That failure mode can also be dealt with by combining equality with other factors, such as not being hurt. (The relative weightings assigned to these factors would be important, of course).
That seems like a reasonable definition; my point is that not everyone uses the same equation.
Hmmm. You're right - that was a bad example. (I don't know if you're familiar with the Chanur series, by C. J. Cherryh? I ask because my first thought for a better example came straight out of there - she does a god job of presenting alien moralities)
Let me provide a better one. Consider Marvin, and Fred. Marvin's moral system considers the total benefit to the world of every action; but he tends to weight actions in favour of himself, because he knows that in the future, he will always choose to do the right thing (by his morality) and thus deserves ties broken in his favour.
Fred's moral system entirely discounts any benefits to himself. He knows that most people are biased to themselves, and does this in an attempt to reduce the bias (he goes so far as to be biased in the opposite direction).
Both of them get into a war. Both end up in the following situation:
Trapped in a bunker, together with one allied soldier (a stranger, but on the same side). An enemy manages to throw a grenade in. The grenade will kill both of them, unless someone leaps on top of it, in which case it will only kill that one.
Fred leaps on top of the grenade. His morality values the life of the stranger over his own, and he thus acts to save the stranger first.
Marvin throws the stranger onto the grenade. His morality values his own life over a stranger who might, with non-trivial probability, be a truly villainous person.
Here we have two different moralities, leading to two different results, in the same situation.
That is worth keeping in mind. Of course, if such a system is found, we could feed in dozens of general situations in advance - and if in a tough situation, then after resolving it one way or another, we could feed that situation into the computer and find out for future reference which course of action was correct (that eliminates a lot of the time constraint).
That's true, the question is, how often is this because people have totally different values, and how often is it that they have extremely similar "ideal equations," but different "approximations" of what they think that equation is. I think for sociopaths, and other people with harmful ego-syntonic mental disorders it's probably the former, but its more often the later for normal people.
Eliezer has argued that it is confusing and misleading to use the word "morality" to refer to codes of behavior entities possess that have nothing to do with improving people's wellbeing, making the world a happier, fairer, freer place, and similar concepts. He argues that creatures like the Pebblesorters do not care about morality at all, they care about sorting pebbles and calling sorting pebbles a type of "morality" confuses two separate concepts.
It sounds to me like Fred and Marvin both care about achieving similar moral objectives, but have different ideas about how to go about it. I'd say that again, which moral code is better can only be determined by trying to figure out which one actually does a better job of achieving moral goals. "Moral progress" can be regarded as finding better and better heuristics to achieve those moral goals, and finding a closer representation of the ideal equation.
Again, I think I agree with Eliezer that a truly alien code of behavior, like that exhibited by sociopaths, and really inhuman aliens like the Pebblesorters or paperclippers, should maybe be referred to by some word other than morality. This is because since the word "morality" usually refers to doing things like making the world a happier place and increasing the positive things in life. So if we refer to the behavior code of a creature that cares nothing for doing those things as "morality," we will give the subconscious impression that that creature really does care about doing good and simply disagrees about how to go about it. This isn't correct, a sociopaths and paperclippers doesn't care about other people at all, so we shouldn't give the impression they do.
I am less sure about whether the term "morality" should be used to refer to the behavior codes of aliens that care about some of the same positive things that normal humans do, but also differ in important ways, like the Babyeaters and Super-Happy-People. Maybe we could call it "semi-morality?"
Sorry, the only Cherryh I've read is "The Scapegoat." I thought it gave a good impression of how alien values would look to humans, but wish it had given some more ideas about what it was that made elves think so differently.
I'd say sometimes A, and sometimes B. But I think that's true even in the absence of mental disorders; I don't think that the "ideal equation" necessarily sits somewhere hidden in the human psyche.
That is valid, as long as both systems have the same goals. Marvin's system includes the explicit goal "stay alive", more heavily weighted then the goal "keep a stranger alive"; Fred's system explicitly entirely excludes the goal "stay alive".
If two moral systems agree both on the goals to be achieved, and the weightings to give those goals, then they will be the same moral system, yes. But two people's moral systems need not agree on the underlying goals.
Well, to be fair, in a Paperclipper's mind, paperclips are the positive things in life, and they certainly make the paperclipper happier. I realise that's probably not what you intended, but the phrasing may need work.
Which really feeds into the question of what goals a moral system should have. To the Babyeaters, a moral system should have the goal of eating babies, and they can provide a lot of argument to support that point - in terms of improved evolutionary fitness, for example.
I think that we can agree that a moral system's goals should be the good things in life. I'm less certain that we can agree on what those good things necessarily are, or on how they should be combined relative to each other. (I expect that if we really go to the point of thoroughly dissecting what we consider to be the good things in life, then we'll agree more than we disagree; I expect we'll be over 95% in agreement, but not quite 100%. This is what I generally expect for any stranger).
For example, we might disagree on whether it is more important to be independant in our actions, or to follow the legitimate instructions of a suitably legitimate authority.
Hmmm. I haven't read that one.
It's not that I think there's literally a math equation locked in the human psyche that encodes morality. It's more like there are multiple (sometimes conflicting) moral values and methods for resolving conflicts between them and that the sum of these can be modeled as a large and complicated equation.
You gave me the impression that Marvin valued "staying alive" less as an end in itself, and more as a means to achieve the end of improving the world. in particular when you said this:
This is actually something that bothers me in fiction when a character who is superhumanly good and power (i.e. Superman, the Doctor) risks their lives to save a relatively small amount of people. It seems short-sighted of them to do that since they regularly save much larger groups of people and anticipate continuing to do so in the future, so it seems like they should preserve their lives for those people's sakes.
If you define "the good things in life" as "whatever an entity wants the most," then you can agree, whatever someone wants is "good," be it paperclips or eudaemonia. On the other hand, I'm not sure we should do this, there are some hypothetical entities I can imagine where I can't see it as ever being good that they get what they want. For instance I can imagine a Human-Torture-Maximizer that wants to do nothing but torture human beings. It seems to me that even if there were a trillion Human-Torture-Maximizers and one human in the universe it would be bad for them to get what they want.
For more neutral, but still alien preferences, I'm less sure. It seems to me that I have a right to stop Human-Torture-Maximizers from getting what they want. But would I have the right to stop paperclippers? Making the same paperclip over and over again seems like a pointless activity to me, but if the paperclippers are willing to share part of the universe with existing humans do I have a right to stop them? I don't know, and I don't think Eliezer does either.
I think that we, and most humans, have the same basic desires, where we differ is the object of those desires, and the priority of those desires.
For instance, most people desire romantic love. But those desires usually have different objects, I desire romantic love with my girlfriend, other people desire it with their significant others. Similarly, most people desire to consume stories, but the object of that desire differs, some people like Transformers, others The Notebook.
Similarly, people often desire the same things, but differ as to their priorities, how much of those things they want. Most people desire both socializing, and quiet solitude, but some extroverts want lots of one and less of the other, while introverts are the opposite.
In the case of the paerclippers, my first instinct is to regard opposing paperclipping as no different from the many ways humans have persecuted each other for wanting different things in the past. But then it occurred to me that paperclip-maximizing might be different because most persecutions in the past involve persecuting people who have different objects and priorities, not people who actually have different desires. For instance homosexuality is the same kind of desire as heterosexuality, just with a different object (same sex instead of opposite).
Does this mean it isn't bad to oppose paperclipping? I don't know, maybe, but maybe not. Maybe we should just try to avoid creating paperclippers or similar creatures so we don't have to deal with it.
This seems like a difference in priority, rather than desire, as most people would prefer differing proportions of both both. It's still a legitimate disagreement, but I think it's more about finding a compromise between conflicting priorities, rather than totally different values.
Compounding this problem is the fact that people value diversity to some extent. We don't value all types of diversity obviously, I think we'd all like to live in a world where people held unanimous views on the unacceptability of torturing innocent people. But we would like other people to be different from us in some ways. Most people, I think, would rather live in a world full of different people with different personalities than a world consisting entirely of exact duplicates (in both personality and memory) of one person. So it might be impossible to reach full agreement on those other values without screwing up the achievement of the Value of Diversity.
I'm sorry, there's an ambiguity there - when you say "the sum of these", are you summing across the moral values and imperatives of a single person, or of humanity as a whole?
You are quite correct. I apologise; I changed that example several times from where I started, and it seems that one of my last-minute changes actually made it a worse example (my aim was to try to show how the explicit aim of self-preservation could be a reasonable moral aim, but in the process I made it not a moral aim at all). I should watch out for that in the future.
I've always felt that was because one of the effects of great power, is that it's so very easy to let everyone die. With great power, as Spiderman is told, comes great responsibility; one way to ensure that you're not letting your own power go to your head, is by refusing to not-rescue anyone. After all, if the average science hero lets everyone he thinks is an idiot die, then who would be left?
Sometimes there's a different reason, though; Sherlock Holmes would ignore a straightforward and safe case to catch a serial killer in order to concentrate on a tricky and deadly case involving a stolen diamond; he wasn't in the detective business to help people, he was in the detective business in order to be challenged, and he would regularly refuse to take cases that did not challenge him.
(That's probably a fair example as well, actually; for Holmes, only the challenge, the mental stimulation of a worthy foe, is important; for Superman, what is important is the saving of lives, whether from a mindless tsunami or Lex Luthor's latest plot).
Hmmm. If you're willing to accept zero, or near-zero, as a priority, then that statement can apply to any two sets of desires. Consider Sherlock holmes and a paperclipper; Holmes' desire for mental stimulation is high-priority, his desire for paperclips is zero-priority, while the paperclipper's desire for paperclips is high priority, and its desire for mental stimulation is zero-priority. (Some desires may have negative priority, which can then be interpreted as a priority to avoid that outcome - for example, my desire to immerse my hand in acid is negative, but a masochist may have a positive priority for that desire)
This implies that, in order to meaningfully differentiate the above statement from "some people have different desires", I may have to designate some very low priority, below which the desire is considered absent (I may, of course, place that line at exactly zero priority). Some desires, however, may have no priority on their own, but inherit priority from another desire that they feed into; for example, a paperclipper has zero desire for self-preservation on its own, but it will desire self-preservation so that it can better create more paperclips.
Now, given a pool of potential goals, most people will pick out several desires from that pool, and there will be a large overlap between any two people (for example, most humans desire to eat - most but not all, there are certain eating disorders that can mess with that), and it is possible to pick out a set of desires that most people will have high priorities for.
It's even probably possible to pick out a (smaller) set of desires such that those who do not have those desires at some positive priority are considered psychologically unhealthy. But such people nonetheless do exist.
In my personal view, it is neutral to paperclip or to oppose paperclipping. It becomes bad to paperclip only when the paperclipping takes resources away from something more important.
And there are circumstances (somewhat forced circumstances) where it could be good to paperclip.
There exist people who would place negative value on the idea of following the instuctions of any legitimate authority. (They tend to remain a small and marginal group, because they cannot in turn form an authority for followers to follow without rampant hypocrisy).
Yes, diversity has many benefits. The second-biggest benefit of diversity is that some people will be more correct than others, and this can be seen in the results they get; then everyone can re-diversify around the most correct group (a slow process, taking generations, as the most successful group slowly outcompetes the rest and thus passes their memes to a greater and/or more powerful proportion of the next generation). By a similar tokem, it means that one something happens that detroys one type of person, it doesn't destroy everyone (bananas have a definite problem there, being a bit of a monoculture).
The biggest benefit is that it leads to social interaction. A completely non-diverse society would have to be a hive mind (or different experiences would slowly begin to introduce diversity), and it would be a very lonely hive mind, with no-one to talk to.
Nearly all of humanity as a whole. There are obviously some humans who don't really value morality, we call them sociopaths, but I think most humans care about very similar moral concepts. The fact that people have somewhat different personal preferences and desires at first might seem to challenge this idea, but I don't really think it does. It just means that there are some desires that generate the same "value" of "good" when fed into the "equation." In fact, if diversity is a good, as we discussed previously, then people having different personal preferences might in fact be morally desirable.
That's a good point. I was considering using the word "proportionality" instead of "priority" to better delineate that I don't accept zero as a priority, but rejected it because it sounded clunky. Maybe I shouldn't have.
I agree with that. What I'm wondering is, would I have a moral duty to share resources with a paperclipper if it existed, or would pretty much any of the things I spend the resources on if I kept them for myself count (i.e. eudaemonic things) as "something more important."
I think there might actually be lots of people like this, but most appear normal because they place even greater negative value on doing something stupid because they ignored good advice just because it came from an authority. In other words, following authority is a negative terminal value, but an extremely positive instrumental value.
Exactly. I would still want the world to be full of a diverse variety of people, even if I had a nonsentient AI that was right about everything and could serve my every bodily need.
Okay then, next question; how do you decide which people to exclude? You say that you are excluding sociopaths, and I think that they should be excluded; but on exactly what basis? If you're excluding them simply because they fail to have the same moral imperatives as the ones that you think are important, then that sounds very much like a No True Scotsman argument to me. (I exclude them mainly on an argument of appeal to authority, myself, but that also has logic problems; in either case, it's a matter of first sketching out what the moral imperative should be, then throwing out the people who don't match).
And for a follow-up question; is it necessary to limit it to humanity? Let us assume that, ten years from now, a flying saucer lands in the middle of Durban, and we meet a sentient alien form of life. Would it be necessary to include their moral preferences in the equation as well?
Even if they are Pebblesorters?
It may be, but only within a limited range. A serial killer is well outside that range, even if he believes that he is doing good by only killing "evil" people (for some definition of "evil").
Hmmm. I think I'd put "buying a packet of paperclips for the paperclipper" as on the same moral footing, more or less, as "buying an icecream for a small child". It's nice for the person (or paperclipper) recieving the gift, and that makes it a minor moral positive by increasing happiness by a tiny fraction. But if you could otherwise spend that money on something that would save a life, then that clearly takes priority.
Hmmm. Good point; that is quite possible. (Given how many people seem to follow any reasonably persuasive authority, though, I suspect that most people have a positive priority for this goal - this is probably because, for a lot of human history, peasants who disagreed with the aristocracy tended to have fewer descendants unless they all disagreed and wiped out said aristocracy).
Here's a tricky question - what exactly are the limits of "nonsentient"? Can a nonsentient AI fake it by, with clever use of holograms and/or humanoid robots, cause you to think that you are surrounded by a diverse variety of people even when you are not (thus supplying the non-bodily need of social interaction)? The robots would all be philosophical zombies, of course; but is there any way to tell?
Well, if we're really going to take Omelas seriously as our test case, then presumably we also have to look at how much that "extra happiness" (or whatever else we're putting in the plus column) is reduced by those who walk away from it, and by those who are traumatized by it, and so forth. It might turn out that increasing the population doesn't help.
But that's just a quibble. I basically agree: once we swallow the assumption that for some reason we neither understand nor can ameliorate, the happiness of the many ineluctably depends on the misery of the few, then a total-utilitarian approach either says that equality is the most important factor in utility (which is a problem like you describe), or endorses the few being miserable.
That's quite an assumption to swallow, though. I have no reason to believe it's true of the world I live in.
A weaker version that might be true of the world I actually live in is that concentrating utility-generating resources in fewer hands results in higher total utility-from-all-sources-other-than-equality (Ua) but more total-disutility-from-inequality (Ub). But it's not quite as clear that our (Ua, Ub) preferences are lexicographic.
Doubling the population should double the happiness; double the trauma; double the people who walk away. The end result should be (assuming a high enough population that the Law of Large Numbers is a reasonable heuristic) about twice the utility.
Consider the case of farmland; larger farms produce more food-per-acre than smaller farms. (Why? Because larger farms attract commercial farmers with high-intensity farming techniques; and they can buy better farming equipment with their higher profits). Now, in the case of farmland, the optimal scenario is not equality; you don't want everyone to have the same amount of farmland, you want those who are good at farming to have most of it. (For a rather dramatic example of this, see the Zimbabwe farm invasions).
On the other hand, consider the case of food itself. Here, equality is a lot more important; giving one man food for a hundred while ninety-nine men starve is clearly a failure case, as a lot of food ends up going rotten and ninety-nine people end up dead.
So the optimal (Ua, Ub) ordering depends on exactly what it is that is being ordered; there is no universally correct ordering.
You seem to be assuming a form of utility that is linear with happiness, with trauma, with food-per-acre, with starving people, etc.
I agree with you that if we calculate utility this way, what you say follows.
It's not clear to me that we ought to calculate utility this way.
Hmmm. There are other ways to calculate utility, yes, and some of them are very likely better than linear. But all of them should at least be monotonically increasing with increased happiness, lower trauma, etc. There isn't some point of global happiness where you can say that global happiness above this level is worse than global happiness at this level, if all else remains constant. The increase may be smaller for higher starting levels of happiness, but it should be an increase.
Such a system can either be bounded above by a maximum value, which it approaches asymptotically (such that no amount of global happiness alone can ever be worth, say, ten billion utilions, but it can approach arbitrarily close to that amount), or it can be unbounded (in which case enough global happiness can counter any finite amount of negative effects). A linear system would be unbounded, and my comments above can be trivially changed to fit with any unbounded system (but not necessarily with a bounded system).
It's not clear to me whether it should be a bounded or an unbounded system..
OK, so we agree that doubling the population doesn't provide twice the utility, but you're now arguing that it at least increases the utility (at least, up to a possible upper bound which might or might not exist).
This depends on the assumption that the utility-increasing aspects of increased population increase with population faster than the utility-decreasing aspects of increased population do. Which they might not.
...you know, it's only after I read this comment that I realised that you're suggesting that the utility-decreasing aspects may not use the same function as the utility-decreasing aspects. That is, what I was doing was mathematically equivalent to first linearly combining the separate aspects, and only then feeding that single number to a monotonically increasing nonlinear function.
Now I feel somewhat silly.
But yes, now I see that you are right. There are possible ethical models (example: bounded asymptotic increase for positive utility, unbounded linear decrease for negative utility) wherein a larger Omelas could be worse than a smaller Omelas, above some critical maximum size. In fact, there are some functions wherein an Omelas of size X could have positive utility, while an Omelas of size Y (with Y>X) could have negative utility.
Yup. Sorry I wasn't clearer earlier; glad we've converged.