I used the wording "cause less" which means the people enacting the ideal would not be able to kill people in order to prevent people from dying.
The wording doesn't prevent that, but your elaboration here does. You've (roughly speaking) replaced a simple consequentlialist moral with a rather complex deontological one. The problems and potential failure modes change accordingly. Neither are an ideal against which I would gauge moral progress.
I'm glad we're now in the same context.
Would you agree or disagree that no matter what anybody had proposed as a potential way of gauging moral progress, you most likely would have disagreed with it, and there most likely would have been the potential for practically endless debate?
What would be most constructive is to be told "Here is this other ideal against which to gauge progress that would be a better choice." What I feel like I'm being told, instead, is "This is not perfect." That is a given, and it's not useful.
I would earnes...
Ever since Eliezer, Yvain, and myself stopped posting regularly, LW's front page has mostly been populated by meta posts. (The Discussion section is still abuzz with interesting content, though, including original research.)
Luckily, many LWers are posting potentially front-page-worthy content to their own blogs.
Below are some recent-ish highlights outside Less Wrong, for your reading enjoyment. I've added an * to my personal favorites.
Overcoming Bias (Robin Hanson, Rob Wiblin, Katja Grace, Carl Shulman)