= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on On Caring - 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 (272)
Why do you think so? It seems to me the fact that someone is my close friend is an excellent reason to care about her.
I think it depends on what you mean by "care".
If you mean "devote time and effort to", sure; I completely agree that it makes a lot of sense to do this for your friends, and you can't do that for everyone.
If you mean "value as a human being and desire their well-being", then I think it's not justifiable to afford special privilege in this regard to close friends.
By "care" I mean allocating a considerably higher value to his particular human compared to a random one.
Yes, I understand you do, but why do you think so?
I don't think the worth of a human being should be decided upon almost entirely circumstantial grounds, namely their proximity and/or relation to myself. If anything it should be a function of the qualities or the nature of that person, or perhaps even blanket equality.
If I believe that my friends are more valuable, it should be because of the qualities that led to them being my friend rather than simply the fact that they are my friends. However, if that's so then there are many, many other people in the world who have similar qualities but are not my friends.
I assume you would pay your own mortgage. Would you mind paying my mortgage as well?
I can't pay everyone's mortgage, and nor can anyone else, so different people will need to pay for different mortgages.
Which approach works better, me paying my mortgage and you paying yours, or me paying your mortgage and you paying mine?
If you care equally for two people, your money should go to the one with the greatest need. It is very unlikely that in a country with many mortgage-payers, the person with the greatest need is you. So you should be paying down people's mortgages until the mortgages of everyone in the world leave them no worse than you with respect to mortgages; only then should you then pay anything to yourself.
And even if it's impractical to distribute your money to all mortgage payers in the world, surely you could find a specific mortgage payer who is so bad off that paying the mortgage of just this one person satisfies a greater need than paying off your own.
But you don't. And you can't. And everyone doesn't and can't, not just for mortgages, but for, say, food or malaria nets. You don't send all your income above survival level to third-worlders who need malaria nets (or whatever other intervention people need the most); you don't care for them and yourself equally.
Yes, if I really ought to value other human beings equally then it means I ought to devote a significant amount of time and/or money to altruistic causes, but is that really such an absurd conclusion?
Perhaps I don't do those things, but that doesn't mean I can't and it doesn't mean I shouldn't.
You can say either
You appear to be claiming 2 and denying 1. However, I don't see a significant difference between 1 and 2; 1 and 2 result in exactly the same actions by you and it ends up just being a matter of semantics.
I agree; I don't see a significant difference between thinking that I ought to value other human beings equally but failing to do so, and actually viewing them equally and not acting accordingly. If I accept either (1) or (2) it's still a moral failure, and it is one that I should act to correct. In either case, what matters is the actions that I ought to take as a result (i.e. effective altruism), and I think the implications are the same in both cases.
That being said, I guess the methods that I would use to correct the problem would be different in either hypothetical. If it's (1) then there may be ways of thinking about it that would result in a better valuation of other people, or perhaps to correct for the inaccuracy of the care-o-meter as per the original post.
If it's (2), then the issue is one of akrasia, and there are plenty of psychological tools or rationalist techniques that could help.
Of course, (1) and (2) aren't the only possibilities here; there's at least two more that are important.
As usual, the word "better" hides a lot of relevant detail. Better for whom? By what measure?
Shockingly, in at least some cases by some measures, though, it works better for us if I pay your debt and you pay my debt, because it is possible for a third party to get much, much better terms on repayment than the original borrower. In many cases, debts can be sold for pennies on the dollar to anyone except the original borrower. See any of these articles
Ah. It seems we have been talking about somewhat different things.
You are talking about the worth of a human being. I'm talking about my personal perception of the value of a human being under the assumption that other people can and usually do have different perceptions of the same value.
I try not to pass judgement of the worth of humans, but I am quite content with assigning my personal values to people based, in part, on "their proximity and/or relation to myself".
I'm not entirely sure what a "personal perception of the value of a human being" is, as distinct from the value or worth of a human being. Surely the latter is what the former is about?
Granted, I guess you could simply be talking about their instrumental value to yourself (e.g. "they make me happy"), but I don't think that's really the main thrust of what "caring" is.
The "worth a human being" implies that there is one, correct, "objective" value for that human being. We may not be able to observe it directly so we just estimate it, with some unavoidable noise and errors, but theoretically the estimates will converge to the "true" value. The worth of a human being is a function with one argument: that human being.
The "personal perception of the value of a human being" implies that there are multiple, different, "subjective" values for the same human being. There is no single underlying value to which the estimates converge. The personal perception of a value is a function with two arguments: who is evaluated and who does the evaluation.
So, either there is such a thing as the "objective" value and hence, implicitly, you should seek to approach that value, or there is not.
I don't see any reason to believe in an objective worth of this kind, but I don't really think it matters that much. If these is no single underlying value, then the act of assigning your own personal values to people is still the same thing as "passing judgement on the worth of humans", because it's the only thing those words could refer to; you can't avoid the issue simply by calling it a subjective matter.
In my view, regardless of whether the value in question is "subjective" or "objective", I don't think it should be determined by the mere circumstance of whether I happened to meet that person or not.
So, for example, you believe that to a mother the value of her own child should be similar to that of a random person anywhere on Earth -- right? It's a "mere circumstance" that this particular human happens to be her child.
Probably not just any random person, because one can reasonably argue that children should be valued more highly than adults.
However, I do think that the mother should hold other peoples' children as being of equal value to her own. That doesn't mean valuing her own children less, it means valuing everyone else's more.
Sure, it's not very realistic to expect this of people, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try.