Furslid comments on We Don't Have a Utility Function - Less Wrong

43 [deleted] 02 April 2013 03:49AM

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

Comments (123)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Furslid 02 April 2013 05:06:15PM -1 points [-]

I think your definition of terminal value is a little vague. The definition I prefer is as follows. A value is instrumental if derives its value from its ability to make other values possible. To the degree that a value is not instrumental, it is a terminal value. Values may be fully instrumental (money), partially instrumental (health [we like being healthy, but it also lets us do other things we like]) or fully terminal (beauty).

Terminal values do not have the warm fuzzy glow of high concepts. Beauty, truth, justice, and freedom may be terminal values, but they aren't the only ones. They aren't even the most clear cut examples. One of the clearest examples of a terminal value is sexual pleasure. It is harder to argue it is instrumental to a higher value or more determined on other facts and circumstances than any of the above examples.

Also, how does identifying terminal values help us make choices? We must still chose between our values. If we split our values into terminal and instrumental it will still be rational to chose instrumental values over terminal values sometimes. I'd rather make a million dollars (instrumental value) than a painting short of a masterpiece (terminal value). Identifying values as terminal does not prevent us from having to chose between them either.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 03 April 2013 06:15:51AM 2 points [-]

To the degree that a value is not instrumental, it is a terminal value.

Either that or a bias. The difficulty (or even impossibility) of separating out biases from terminal values is the main problem with thinking of oneself as a VNM-utilitarian.

Comment author: [deleted] 03 April 2013 02:26:15PM 1 point [-]

The difficulty (or even impossibility) of separating out biases from terminal values is the main problem with thinking of oneself as a VNM-utilitarian.

What? How so?

Are there other theories that don't have this problem?

(for reference, I take VNM seriously but not absolutely, and I don't take utilitarianism seriously.)

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 04 April 2013 07:58:19AM 2 points [-]

What? How so?

You had an entire post on the subject, you even linked to it in the OP.

Are there other theories that don't have this problem?

I'm not sure. My point was that VNM is not nearly as final a solution to morality as a lot of people around here seem to think.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 April 2013 03:34:19PM 1 point [-]

I'm not sure. My point was that VNM is not nearly as final a solution to morality as a lot of people around here seem to think.

Sorry, I read your comment as implying that it was a failure of VNM in particular.

Comment author: Furslid 03 April 2013 05:54:18PM 0 points [-]

The difference between instrumental and terminal values are in the perception of the evaluator. If they believe that something is useful to achieve other values, then it is an instrumental value. If they are wrong about its usefulness, that makes it an error in evaluation, not a terminal value. The difference between instrumental and terminal values is in the map, not in the territory. For someone who believes in astrology, getting their horoscope done is an instrumental value.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 04 April 2013 07:56:36AM *  1 point [-]

The difference between instrumental and terminal values are in the perception of the evaluator.

In practice this criterion is frequently circular. See also the blue minimizing robot.