= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
paper-machine comments on How to Build a Community - 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 (229)
On the bright side, we now know how little the torture of over twenty-five thousand is worth to you.
Yes. It's worth at least the prevention of the torture of fifty thousand.
Guerrilla warfare against the new government began the same month as the coup - the very next day, in point of fact. At that point I think civil war was inevitable. (And yes, the coup itself was inevitable. Even the judiciary supported it. This might have something to do with the fact that their insistence on following the law resulted in Allende's administration effectively calling the justices of the nation capitalist lapdogs. Yes, I paraphrase.)
The population of Chile was 10 million. There were fewer than 30,000 political prisoners, and around 5,000 deaths (including military and guerrilla forces killed in combat). And yes, a lot of those political prisoners were tortured.
There were other major conflicts in the area in the same era.
Somewhere north of 10,000 died in Argentina in this time frame in the "Dirty War."
The civil war in El Salvador cost around 75,000 lives, out of a population of somewhere south of 5 million people.
The civil war in Guatemala cost somewhere north of 150,000 lives, out of a population of around 4 million people.
Nicaragua faced -two- civil wars, for a combined death toll of at least 40,000, out of a population of around 3 million people.
I could keep going.
Pinochet was an asshole. But if the other conflicts in the region in the era are any indication, his administration, as oppressive as it was, did save the country from a far more costly conflict. In general the trend was for countries that quashed revolutionary forces brutally - such as Argentina and Chile - suffered far fewer deaths overall than countries that didn't or couldn't, such as Nicaragua. (Guatemala initially didn't, but turned far more brutal later.) More, his administration concluded itself peacefully, democratically, and without substantive corruption, which also ran against the norm (for comparison, see, for example, Bolivia). (Note that there -was- corruption -during- his administration. My point there is that he didn't try to corrupt the new government as it formed, and indeed appears to have done a very good job of passing the torch.)
Yes. I think the man did more good than evil. It's a well-considered position and not one I entered into lightly. This doesn't mean the torture of thousands of people doesn't matter; they do. Rather, it means that the lives of tens of thousands of people who -didn't- die matter also.
It's really hard to disentangle local causation of suffering from external meddling. It seems like an obvious fact to me that there would have been less suffering in the third world if the US and the USSR hadn't been keeping score based on who had successfully couped / repressed a third world country's government more recently.
Cf. Twilight Struggle (which is an amazing game, btw).
More or less what I was going to say, with the addendum that the civil wars OW brings up -- with the exception of Argentina -- are not in the same reference class. In the 1970's Argentina had a population of over 20 million, making its death rate the same, if not less, than Chile's.
El Salvador's troubles were brought on by a border dispute; Guatemala's number includes a genocide of their indigenous Mayan people. The last three take place in countries with much higher population density and a much more severe history of political and economic instability. Chile's economy does not run entirely on sugar, coffee, bananas and coke.
Argentina's policies were very similar to Chile's; they, like Pinochet's Chile, killed thousands of revolutionaries in a brutal and oppressive offensive (notice that I made note of this in the comment). If you're wanting to say Pinochet made the wrong decision because another country did better, Argentina is -not- the country to compare to.
(Note that I'm not particularly a fan of Argentina's series of dictators, whose administrations inevitably ended in death or coup.)
Nothing in my previous comment says this. Yawn.
And what about, um, you know, the logic of MY side in all this? The logic of the Left? Wherever third-world revolutionaries have turned to all the things they're accused of doing, their rationale has always been to prevent the deaths and misery that were going on without any overt civil war, through the "normal" functioning of divided societies. So how is this different from Maoists claiming that, as under Mao's rule life expectancy in China doubled, history has absolved him of everything?
Mark Twain wrote quite glowingly:
The question is, can we at all justify throwing away the moral injunctions of our civilization by arguing from some clever total-utilitarian counterfactuals, with the track records of such approaches being what it is? I think no, and I think that if you'd say yes, you also ought to have the nerve to explain to victims like those quoted above how you think that their fate was better than the entirely counterfactual alternative.
Something feels wrong about the comparison Mark Twain made. I'll try to explain by an example:
When my country was officially a socialist country, we didn't have mobile phones. Shortly after the regime changed, mobile phones were invented, and now everyone has them. -- Yet I don't consider this an evidence that somehow socialism and mobile phones are opposed. It simply happened. In a counterfactual universe, my country would be socialist today and have mobile phones, too. If I try to make an argument about how socialism relates to the mobile phones, it is not fair to compare past and present. It would be fair only to compare the present and the counterfactual present... assuming such comparison can be made. (For example, I could argue that in the counterfactual universe people in my country probably have less mobile phones, because central planning would probably decide that a smaller number of mobile phones is enough. But of course someone could argue they have more and better mobile phones, because of, uhm, something. Or that having less mobile phones, and perhaps more of something else, is better.)
Similarly, to morally evaluate a revolution, we should not compare it with the past, but with the counterfactual universe where the revolution did not happen. Yeah, it might be impossible. That does not make comparison with the past a correct one -- only as much as the past is reliable as a model of the counterfactual present.
Because, if we take comparing with past as our moral guide, here is my advice for all wannabe dictators: -- Make your revolution just after a significant invention in agriculture or medicine! Then, assuming you are competent enough, all the people you killed will be balanced by the people saved by the improved agriculture or medicine. And the history will consider you the benefactor of humankind. (And a promoter of modern technology.)
Of course that's an example why comparing with past can be misleading. Talking about dictators who kill people and forcefully introduce agricultural or medical improvements which wouldn't have otherwise happened, that would be a different topic. (But only if you make sure the improvements did not happen in the counterfactual universe.)
Regardless of whether or not I agree with his position here, I think this is an unfair standard to set.
If you chose a 90% chance of saving 500 people over a 100% chance of saving 400, got unlucky, and those 500 died, how forgiving do you think their families would be? Do you think it would be easy to face them?
I don't think this sort of moral lever is very useful for separating good choices from bad ones.
No. But I still would. And I'd let them take it all out on me. I'd hate to live in a world where anything less could be expected of me. Some things ought not to be easy to live with.
"The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword."
That rule literally makes sense only because of scope insensitivity or similar bias. There's no reason to expect a rationalist to adopt it within a community of rationality.
In other words, maybe instrumentally useful, not terminal value.
Presumably when we're talking about killing and torturing people, the context cannot be a "community of rationality".
I'm not sure that follows. "Rationality" isn't a generic applause light. It doesn't mean 'nice'.
In the real world, you are probably right. In the least convenient possible world, torture is an effective interrogation technique and ticking-time-bombs are realistic scenarios, not ridiculous movie plot devices.
In short, I don't need to be a deontologist to think the overthrow of Allende was a net negative. Please don't act like the arguments against overthrowing Allende are arguments in favor of bright line rules. If for no other reason than you are creating the perception that deotologist never consider consequence. Which is a stupid position that no deotologists should accept.
Incidentally, I -also- regard the overthrow of Allende, as it happened, was a net negative. I think the situation would have been better if the coup didn't happen. But I don't think Pinochet was responsible for the coup; I think he simply took charge of it (see, for example, contemporary judicial opinions of the coup). That is, given the political situation in Chile, I regard the coup as inevitable, with or without Pinochet; examining what happened in other countries (such as Argentina, whose junta was a series of deaths and coups - I have no idea how Argentina stayed as stable as it did through that mess), Pinochet made things better, rather than worse.
If you blame Pinochet for the coup, yes, I expect Pinochet did more harm than good. That's an extremely simplistic view of the situation in Chile, however. (Indeed, senior military officials involved in the matter suggested, contrary to the initial public story, that Pinochet was actually a reluctant participant in the coup.)
As far as I can tell, that's only true if you take the entire Cold War context as a given. If the US wasn't actively trying to constrain Allende's freedom to act, is the coup still inevitable? (Since we are reaching the end of my knowledge of Chilean politics, I don't know the answer to that question).
Presumably, Pinochet thought the repression was necessary for government stability. If Pinochet (or someone similar) had been able to take power without a coup, is the repression necessary for government stability?
More generally, I'm skeptical about the able to draw lessons about right behavior and right governance by looking only at the internals of countries that we already know has significant external interventions on how to govern.
Yes, but so what? You're asking here whether social rules that have been optimised for the real world will behave well in highly inconvenient possible worlds where torture is actually effective, and ticking nuclear-time-bombs are a routine hazard. And no, they probably won't work very well in such worlds. Does that somehow make them the wrong rules in the real world?
Multiheaded's argument style is that OrphanWilde is obviously wrong. I think OrphanWilde is wrong, but I disapprove of debate style that asserts his wrongness is obvious, when I think the historical facts are more ambiguous.
Someone should have told Kant that.
Kant thinks this argument should work?
Because that argument is stupid, and I don't think a deontoligist needs to accept it.
I hate to agree with you, but I do, in some ways. It's all fine and dandy to talk about Pinochet being good for Chile, but if he thought so, he should have been doing a fair chunk of the executions and tortures himself.
Alas, I have no reason to think Pinochet would have treated this like a deterrent. Except that he would likely have thought it a waste of his time because he had more important things to do.
Um, I take it that shminux meant OW and not Pinochet by "him"? Grammar confusion?
...Wow. Faith in the common decency of average LW user suddenly resurging! Seriously, thank you, dude.
You know I've clashed with you over this before, I've more or less written you off as impossible to persuade on this issue (not as in "inhuman monster", more like "committed ideological enemy")... and yet you try to share at least part of my moral sentiment here. I am grateful.
VALIS help me, this whole... conversation just feels so surreal to me somehow.
That's a statement primarily about yourself, only secondarily about the conversation.
Can you please cool it down with attempting to use outrage as an argument? There's all the rest of the internet if we want to see that, LessWrong is one place where outrage-as-argument should not fly.
I don't see the grandparent as an attempt at argument at all. Elsewhere, I see Multiheaded expressing arguments with outrage, but this is substantially different from using outrage as an argument. I agree with you that the latter shouldn't fly on LW, but I have nothing against the former.
If we make the right choice as or more difficult to live with than wrong ones, we're not doing a very good job incentivizing people to take it.
Given the way real-world humans behave, incentives work as a blunt instrument. You can't incentivize only rational decisions without incentivizing irrational decisions that are somewhat similar in form. Incentivizing the 90% chance of saving 500 over the 100% chance of saving 400 would make the right choice more likely in that specific situation, but would also incentivize wrong choices (for instance, taking a 10% chance of 500 people dying in order to implement something that you are really certain would have good effects, when that certainty is unwarranted). You can't change human psychology to make the incentive work only on rational choices, so we're overall better off without the incentive.
Moreover, if we insist that good, moral* people think about making decisions in this way, this leads to more of the decisions being made by evil, immoral people.
*for all values of "good" and "moral".
From the outside view, a randomly picked choice to kill or hurt a large number of people, when made by actual humans, will turn out all wrong and unjustifiable in retrospect, say, 90% of the time. If we're talking about torture as opposed to just killing enemies, it's literally only there to create a lasting climate of terror and alienation (in the society being "reshaped" and "reformed") while giving an outlet to the kind of psychopaths who end up running the repressive machine. So it would make sense to have a very very strong prior against this kind of thing, AKA moral injunction.
Again, if we're considering counterfactuals along great timespans, we ARE considering counterfactuals along great timespans. Equally. If the counterfactual to a world where Pinochet didn't take power is a long and bloody civil war, the counterfactual to a world where Pinochets are hated and considered indefensible... is a lot more Pinochets. (Whom we also just served with a much more widely accepted excuse for their horrific acts.)
To work at all, moral injunctions need to rely on blanket statements. Would you rather have "Thou shalt not kill", or "Thou shalt not kill unless thou sees a really good reason to and it's totally for the greater good"?
As a rule, which is to say as a rule with exceptions. Rules are generally needed because it is not generally possible to accurately figure out consequences. But sometimes it is, in which case it is OK to suspend the rule. As a rule.
Exactly what I've been thinking of. But, as a meta-meta-rule, no-one should generally be the judge in one's own case, i.e. to simply assert that it's OK to suspend some particular rules for some particular act just because one has predicted some particular consequences.
There's the problem of enforcement mechanisms, of course.
You walk into the lobby of a hotel during a major political convention. There's a gun laying on the table next to you, apparently left by the only other occupant of the lobby, who hasn't noticed you - a guy who is now assembling a gun from a backpack and readying magazines; he's muttering rather loudly to himself about how many bullets he can put into a senator who is giving a keynote speech this afternoon. "Thou shalt not kill" or "Greater good"?
What would you want somebody else to do in that position?
When I first hastily glanced at your comment, I thought it'd meant that you wished the assassin had believed in "Thou shalt not kill" principle, and that it was the "Greater good" concept that was motivating him.
Likewise any desire to stop the assassin without actually knowing anything about the politics of the senator in question will have to originate more directly from the "Thou shalt not kill" principle, not from the "Greater Good" principle. To not have the former principle at all would have to mean that I'd need to calculate at that exact moment what the "greater good" in the situation actually is, and by the time the calculation is complete, the assassin would have gone about his business and I'd be unable to stop him.
Hence rule utilitarianism, the thing to do when possessing a mind of finite capabilities...
I want to stop the assassin because I don't want to live in a world where people can just assassinate those they don't like. As I have no practical way of creating a world where "good" assassins are permitted but "bad" ones are not, the only choice is all assassinations or none. The only way that the politics of the senator would matter is if the senator is so bad that assassinating him is overall a good thing even considering that this increases the overall acceptability of assassination. This scenario is impossible barring very unlikely scenarios (which I will ignore, because of Pascal's Mugging). So I don't need to do any calculations at the time.
Could you have at least thought of a scenario that would deserve a response?
Because for this one to even be a dilemma, you'd have to assume that I'm some mute, non-English speaking killer android who can't: 1) take the gun from the table and tell the guy to turn around, hands in the air, etc; 2) run outside and yell "TERRORISTS!"; 3) hit a fire alarm on the wall; 4) shoot him in the leg...
And anyways, to be even a remote parallel with Allende, this story would need to have two guys arguing and one pushing away the gun that the other offers him, launching into a tirade about how he's a pacifist/a Christian/whatever, and would never resort to crime even to oppose tyranny. Then he pushes the other one out of the door, throws the gun after him, turns to you and tries to hand you a protest flyer. (But no, even this doesn't quite get it across.)
Shooting people in the leg is difficult because they're small targets that move quickly. Aiming for the torso is much more reliable.
If you're not willing to kill him, you have no business doing #1. #2 would, at best, result in -somebody else- killing him - you're just outsourcing your moral faults. #3 might just bring more targets to him. And #4 has a pretty high chance of being fatal - femoral artery and all. (Also, a leg is -hard- to shoot. I take it you've never shot a gun before. In that case, you have no business shooting the gun at anything but his center of mass.)
I'm not drawing a parallel with Allende, never mind that your parallel whitewashes Allende's history (Allende would be the senator, or rather president, in this parallel, and there'd be a -crowd- of guys with guns in the lobby, guns and grenades and body armor and aerial support in case they need to bomb the hotel just to be sure, and they wouldn't be crazy so much as enacting the last-ditch and reluctant wishes of the judiciary after the president has repeatedly broken the constitution and ignored the Supreme Court's orders, and so on and so forth). I'm taking this to the root of our disagreement - about whether or not consequences should be considered in moral theory.
I'm not a utilitarian, incidentally. I'm somewhere between a deontologist and a virtue ethicist. (Arguments like this are the reason I've been drifting away from deontology towards virtue ethics. Entirely different arguments are the reason I'll never be a utilitarian.) If you don't think consequences matter, you need some new rules in your deontology.
I would want them to alert hotel security and/or call the police.
Why does the guy need to assemble a second gun if he already had one, and how do you make one out of a backpack?
He needs to have a second gun ready so that he can get as many shots off as possible before having to reload.
He isn't assembling the gun out of a backpack, but from a backpack: specifically, from gun parts which are inside the backpack.
If someone approves of Pinochet, this is unlikely to be a convincing argument to them. Especially if they view warlord types as inevitably occurring during social evolution or something like that.
You've not argued for this, most of us can imagine situations under which it's acceptable to kill but we still have a reasonably strong disinclination to avoid killing people.
The idea that twenty five thousand people wouldn't have been tortured if Pinochet hadn't been a dictator is itself a counterfactual.
Why don't you explain to those victims how their lives would have been better if Pinochet hadn't been dictator? (Note: I don't seriously advocate you dredge up painful memories for somebody just to prove some sort of political point about how right your political views are because you're capable of not giving a shit about their suffering.)
The irony has completely gone off the charts.
Then how the fuck does it not nullify your counterfactual that they would've been tortured?
I can back up my claims with historical evidence about the lawful and peaceful character of Allende's government - as well as the enormous support and protection given to Pinochet and his ilk by the US, without which he would've been way less likely to succeed.
You just assert the opposite, that the US-backed dictators and their pet psychopaths were: 1) the only solution to violence and strife in the region, and 2) not at all a major contributing factor to said strife and violence. I say it's bullshit and shameless propaganda.
I'm really quite confident that many of the survivors brought that up over and over again - in interviews and when testifying after Pinochet's belated arrest and trial.
What, do you think that me, hypothetically, telling a victim/their family: "I looked you up, and I'm so sorry for what happened to you, I wish Pinochet never got his hands on anyone"... is somehow as fucked up as what you could possibly tell them, if Omega forced us both to explain ourselves to them?
Hey, any Chileans on LW?
Get off the trolley track or be consequentialized.
Get off the guill- ...no, I'd rather not go there. But LW has definitely been tempting me as of late.
I love paralepsis!