= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MTGandP comments on Open Thread, January 1-15, 2013 - 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 (333)
I see no reason to restrict our preference extrapolation to presently-existing humans. CEV should extrapolate from all preferences, which includes the preferences of all sentient beings, present and future. Any attempt to place boundaries on this require justification.
Edit: You might say, "Why not also include rocks in our consideration?" Simple: rocks don't have preferences. Sentient beings (including many non-human animals) have preferences.
What if the majority of sentient beings are ants and beetles?
If ants and beetles are sentient, then CEV should take their preferences into account. It sounds like you're trying to use this as a reductio ad absurdum of my claim, but I don't believe that works. If ants and beetles are sentient then they deserve consideration, no matter how unintuitive that may seem.
No it shouldn't.
Elaboration: Your 'should' claim indicates both that you have a preference for CEV<all sentient things> (if not all then at least up to the inclusion of ants and beetles if they are sentient) and that you assert it as a tribal norm. Many others don't implicitly instantiate CEV in that way and instead instantiate it to CEV<favored group>. The most common favored group being 'all humans'. To those people your unqualified assertion would be interpreted as false.
I addressed this point in my original comment.