= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on We Don't Have a Utility Function - 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 (123)
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.
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.)
You had an entire post on the subject, you even linked to it in the OP.
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.
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.
In practice this criterion is frequently circular. See also the blue minimizing robot.