= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on White Lies - 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 (893)
EDIT: Sorry, turns out you already answered my question. Here are some replacement questions.
You've said that you will do nothing, rather than violate a right in order to prevent other rights being violated. Yet you also say that people attempting to violate rights waive their rights not to be stopped. Is this rule designed for the purpose of allowing you to violate people's rights in order to protect others? That seems unfair to people in situations where there's no clearly identifiable moustache-twirling villain.
You have also said that people can waive any of their rights - for example, people waive their right not to have sex in order to have sex, and people waive their right not to be murdered in order to commit suicide. Doesn't this deny the existence of rape within marriage? Isn't it, in fact, the exact argument that was used to oppose laws prohibiting rape within marriage? This seems worrying. (Obviously, there are other, similar cases that can be constructed, but this one is a major problem.)
Finally, you mention that some actions which do not violate rights are nonetheless "being a dick", and you will act to prevent and punish these acts in order to discourage them. Doesn't this imply that there are additional aspects to morality not contained by "rights"? Do you act as a Standard-LessWrong-Consequentialist-Utilitarian™ with regards to Not Being A Dick?
I wish everyone in this thread would be more careful about using the word "right". If you are trying to violate somebody's rights, you don't have "a right not to be stopped". You have your perfectly normal complement of rights, and some of them are getting in the way of protecting someone else's rights, so, since you're the active party, your (contextually relevant) rights are suspended. They remain in effect out of that context (if you are coming at me with a knife I may violently prevent you from being a threat to me; I may not then take your wallet and run off cackling; I may not, ten years later, visit you in prison and inform you that your mother is dead when she is not; etc.).
That's a good question, but the answer is no. A marriage does not constitute a promise to be permanently sexually available. You could opt to issue standing permission, and I gather this was customary and expected in historical marriages, but you can revoke it at any time; your rights are yours and you may assert them at will. I don't object to people granting each other standing permission to do things and sticking with it if that's how they prefer to conduct themselves, but morally speaking the option to refuse remains open.
No. There's morality, and then there's all the many things that are not morality. Consequentialists (theoretically, anyway) assign value to everything and add it all up according to the same arithmetic - with whatever epicycles they need not to rob banks and kidnap medical test subjects - but that's not what I'm doing. Morality limits behavior in certain basic ways. You can be a huge dick and technically not do anything morally wrong. (And people can get back at you all kinds of ways, and not technically do anything morally wrong! It's not a fun way to live and I don't really recommend it.)
No. Actually, you could probably call me sort of virtuist with respect to dickishness. I am sort of Standard-LessWrong-Consequentialist-Utilitarian™ with respect to prudence, which is a whole 'nother thing.
Well, sure. I did read your explanation(s). I was assuming the worst-case scenario for the hypothetical, where you have to violate someone's rights in order to protect others. For example, the classic lying-to-the-nazis-about-the-jews scenario.
Not anymore, no. Because we changed the rules. Because of all the rapes.
I ... see, that seems consistent. I assume you can waive the right to abolish an agreement at will, too? That's the foundation of contract law, but I don't want to assume.
Indeed, and that's what I'm asking about. What is this "don't be a dick" function, and what place does it hold?
Huh. Shame.
... what's "prudence" in your nomenclature? I haven't seen the term as you use it.
If you are trying to violate someone's rights, then your contextually relevant rights are forfeited. For example, the Nazi has forfeited the right not to be lied to.
I'm not sure I understand.
Well, some people are motivated to avoid being dicks, and might value information about how to do it. It's not very ontologically special.
To me, it looks like consequentialists do prudence exclusively, and name it "morality", instead of actually doing any morality. Prudence is arranging for things to be how you would like them to be.
Yes, I know. Hence my question:
You see?
Can I waive my right to un-waive a right? For example, if I waive my right not to work for someone, can I also waive my right to change my mind? As in, a standard contract?
I would assume so, but hey, it can't hurt to ask.
Are you, personally, motivated to discourage dickish behaviour? You are, right? You mentioned you would sue someone for being a dick to you, if it were illegal, even if it was perfectly moral for them to do so.
... as long as "how you would like them to be" doesn't violate any rights. I think I see what you mean by that.
... ah, and "how you would like things to be" includes "no dickishness", right?
I do not see; can you start that line of inquiry over completely for me?
I haven't actually thought about this before, but my instinct is no. Although if you arrange for it to be really hard to communicate a change of mind, someone who went by their last communication with you might not be doing anything wrong, just making a sincere mistake.
I try to minimize it from and around myself. I am not on a Global Dickishness Reduction Campaign of any kind. Maybe I should have said not that I'm not a consequentialist about it, but rather that I'm neither agent- nor recipient-neutral about it? How I would like things to be certainly refers to dickishness.
Sure, I can rephrase.
You've said:
You also say that attackers lose their contextually relevant rights, so you can violate their rights in order to defend others.
My original question was, doesn't that feel like a patch to allow you to act like a consequentialist when it's clear you have to?
Isn't that unfair to people in situations where there is no attacker for you to focus on, where relieving their suffering is not a matter of taking out a convenient target?
Also, I just realized this, but doesn't that mean you should be really concerned about any laws punishing things that don't violate rights, since those criminals haven't waived their rights under your system? For example, suing someone for violating your "right to privacy" by publicising a photo taken of you in a public place.
Huh. This universal right to change your mind about commitments seems like the most radical part of your philosophy (although obviously, you're more tentative about endorsing it) - I noticed you endorsed the right of private individuals to secede from the state.
Yeah, you mentioned being a sort of virtue ethicist here ... you would vote for (prudent) anti-dickishness laws, that sort of thing?
No. It doesn't feel consequentialist to me at all. It's a patch, but it's not a consequentialist-flavored patch.
Example?
I am concerned about that, see elsewhere re: guaranteed exit, consent of the governed, etc. etc. blah blah blah.
If you specify that something's prudent I'm pretty likely to vote for it even if it doesn't affect dickishness in particular. Yay, prudence!
Yeah, I didn't understand your position as well when I asked that.
How about tragedies of the commons, for example?
Most countries do not allow criminals to escape punishment by revoking their consent to be punished.
Hmm, good point. Effective anti-dickishness, laws, then. (Not that I expect you to change your answer.)
Tragedies of the commons are a coordination problem. My system can cover them if there's some kind of complex ownership or promise-keeping involved, but doesn't handle implicit commonses.
Yeah, I'm aware.
I would vote for effective anti-dickishness laws all else being equal but might prioritize reduced dickishness below other things if there were tradeoffs involved.
Utilitarians do this. Consequentialists don't necessarily.
Not only utilitarians, but von Neumann-Morgenstern rational agents.
Well, sure. That wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list; I only meant to highlight that consequentialism does not necessarily do this.
But yes, you're quite right.
"No. There's morality, and then there's all the many things that are not morality."
Is this only a linguistic argument about what to call morality? With ,e.g. , virtue ethics claiming that all areas of life are part of morality, since ethics is about human excellence, and your claim that ethics only has to do with obligations and rights? Is there a reason you prefer to limit the domain of morality? Is there a concept you think gets lost when all of life is included in ethics (in virtue ethics or utilitarianism)?
Also, could you clarify the idea of obligations, are then any obligations which don't emanate from the rights of another person? Are there any obligations which emerge inherently from a person's humanity and are therefore not waivable?
You could re-name everything, but if you renamed my deontological rules "fleeb", I would go on considering fleeb to be ontologically distinct in important ways from things that are not fleeb. I'm pretty sure it's not just linguistic.
Because there's already a perfectly good vocabulary for the ontologically distinct non-fleeb things that people are motivated to act towards - "prudence", "axiology".
Unassailable priority. People start looking at very large numbers and nodding to themselves and deciding that these very large numbers mean that if they take a thought experiment as a given they have to commit atrocities.
Yes; I have a secondary rule which for lack of better terminology I call "the principle of needless destruction". It states that you shouldn't go around wrecking stuff for no reason or insufficient reason, with the exact thresholds as yet undefined.
"Humanity" is the wrong word; I apply my ethics across the board to all persons regardless of species. I'm not sure I understand the question even if I substitute "personhood".
Lets take truth telling as an example. What is the difference between saying that there is an obligation to tell the truth, or honesty being a virtue or that telling the truth is a terminal value which we must maximize in a consequentialist type equation. Won't the different frameworks be mutually supportive since obligation will create a terminal value, virtue ethics will show how to incorporate that into your personality and consequentialism will say that we must be prudent in attaining it? Similarly prudence is a virtue which we must be consequentialist to attain and which is useful in living up to our deontological obligations. and justice is a virtue which emanates from the obligation not to steal and not to harm other people and therefore we must consider the consequences of our actions so that we don't end up in a situation where we will act unjust.
I think I am misunderstanding something in your position, since it seems to me that you don't seem to disagree with consequentialism in that we need to calculate, but rather in what the terminal values are (with utilitarianism saying utility is the only terminal value and you saying hat there are numerous (such as not lying , not stealing not being destructive etc.))
By obligations which emerge from a person's personhood which are not waivable, I mean that they emerge from the self and not in relation to another's rights and therefore can not be waived. To take an example (which I know you do not consider an obligation, but will serve to illustrate the class since many people have this belief) A person has an obligation to live out their life as a result of their personhood and therefore is not allowed to commit suicide since that would be unjust to the self (or nature or god or whatever)
The first thing says you must not lie. The second thing says you must not lie because it signifies or causes defects in your character. The third thing says you must not lie unless there is a compensatory amount of something else encouraging you to lie. The systems really don't fuse this prettily unless you badly misunderstand at least two of them, I'm afraid. (They can cooperate at different levels and human agents can switch around between implementing each of them, but on a theoretical level I don't think this works.)
Absolutely not. Did you read Deontology for Consequentialists?
I still don't know what you mean by "emerge from the self", but if I understand the class of thing you're pointing out with the suicide example, I don't think I have any of those.
Yes I read that post, (Thank you for putting in all this time clarifying your view)
I don't think you understood my question. since "The third thing says you must not lie unless there is a compensatory amount of something else encouraging you to lie. " is not viewing 'not lying' as a terminal value but rather as an instrumental value. a terminal value would mean that lying is bad not because of what it will lead to (as you explain in that post), but if that is the case, must I act in a situation so as not to be forced to lie. For example, lets say you made a promise to someone not to get fired in your first week at work, and if the boss knows that you cheered for a certain team he will fire you, would you say that you shouldn't watch that game since you will be forced to either lie to the boss or to break your promise of keeping your job? (Please fix any loopholes you notice, since this is only meant for illustration) If so it seems like the consequentialist utilitarian is saying that there is a deontological obligation to maximize utility, and therefore you must act to maximize that, whereas you are arguing that there are other deontological values, but you would agree that you should be prudent in achieving your deontological obligations. (we can put virtue ethics to the side if you want, but won't your deontological commitments dictate which virtues you must have, for example honesty, or even courage, so as to act in line with your deontological obligations)
That's a very long paragraph, I'm going to do my best but some things may have been lost in the wall of text.
I understand the difference between terminal and instrumental values, but your conclusion doesn't follow from this distinction. You can have multiple terminal values. If you terminally value both not-lying and also (to take a silly example) chocolate cake, you will lie to get a large amount of chocolate cake (where the value of "large" is defined somewhere in your utility function). Even if your only terminal value is not-lying, you might find yourself in an odd corner case where you can lie once and thereby avoid lying many times elsewhere. Or if you also value other people not lying, you could lie once to prevent many other people from lying.
AAAAAAAAAAAH
It is prudent to be prudent in achieving your deontological obligations. Putting "should" in that sentence flirts with equivocation.
I think it's possible to act completely morally acceptably according to my system while having whopping defects of character that would make any virtue ethicist blush. It might be unlikely, but it's not impossible.
Thank you, I think I understand this now.
To make sure I understand you correctly. are these correct conclusions from what you have said? a. It is permitted (i.e. ethical) to lie to yourself (though probably not prudent) b. It is permitted (i.e. ethical) to act in a way which will force you to tell a lie tomorrow c. It is forbidden (i.e. unethical) to lie now to avoid lying tomorrow (no matter how many times or how significant the lie in the future) d. The differences between the systems will only express themselves in unusual corner cases, but the underlying conceptual structure is very different
I still don't understand your view of utilitarian consequentialism, if 'maximizing utility' isn't a deontological obligation emanating from personhood or the like, where does it come from?
A, B, and C all look correct as stated, presuming situations really did meet the weird criteria for B and C. I think differences between consequentialism and deontology come up sometimes in regular situations, but less often when humans are running them, since human architecture will drag us all towards a fuzzy intuitionist middle.
I don't think I understand the last paragraph. Can you rephrase?