Anonymous6 comments on Fake Utility Functions - Less Wrong

22 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 December 2007 04:55PM

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

Comments (54)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Anonymous6 10 December 2007 10:08:51PM 0 points [-]

Eliezer,

That is a very interesting question. I'm not sure how to answer it. It would be a good test of a scientific claim as you need to provide falsification conditions. However philosophy does not work the same way. If utilitarianism is true, it is in some way conceptually true. I wouldn't know how to tell you what a good argument against 3 + 3 = 6 would look like (and indeed there are no decisive arguments against it). This does not count against the statement or my belief in it.

My best attempt to say that a good argument would be one that showed that happiness being the only thing that is good for someone is in direct conflict with something that many people find to be clearly false and that this would still be the case after considerable reflection. This last part is important as I find many of its consequences unintuitive before reflection and then see why I was confused (or I *think* I see why I was conufused...). It has to appeal to what is good for people rather than what they aim at as it is a theory about goodness, not about psychology (though you might be able to use psychological premises in an argument with conclusions about goodness).

Toby.