khafra comments on Decision Theory FAQ - Less Wrong

52 Post author: lukeprog 28 February 2013 02:15PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (467)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: khafra 28 February 2013 01:30:08PM 0 points [-]

impartially gives weight to all possible first-person perspectives.

This sounds incompatible with consequentialism, for reasons pointed out by Nick Bostrom.

Comment author: Pablo_Stafforini 28 February 2013 01:49:00PM *  5 points [-]

It would only be incompatible with consequentialism if the world contains infinite amounts of value. Moreover, all plausible moral theories include a consequentialist principle: non-consequentialist theories simply say that, in many cases, you are permitted or required not to act as that principle would require (because this would be too costly for you, would violate other people's rights, etc.). Bostrom's paper raises a problem for ethical theory generally, not for consequentialism specifically.

Comment author: Larks 02 March 2013 06:37:00PM 0 points [-]

You get problems if you think it's even possible (p>0) that the world be canonically infinite, not merely if the world actually is infinite.

Bostrom's paper is excellent, and I recommend people read it. It is long, but only because it is exhaustive.