Alicorn comments on The "Intuitions" Behind "Utilitarianism" - Less Wrong

29 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 28 January 2008 04:29PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (193)
Tags: bayesian morality philosophy

Comments (193)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gwern 24 February 2012 03:58:59AM 0 points [-]

Sure, but you'll first have to provide an explanation of LeGuin's.

Comment author: Alicorn 24 February 2012 04:16:34AM *  2 points [-]

There is this habitation called Omelas in which things are pretty swell for everybody except one kid who is kept in lousy conditions; by unspecified mechanism this is necessary for things to be pretty swell for everybody else in Omelas. Residents are told about the kid when they are old enough. Some of them do not approve of the arrangement and emigrate.

Something of this form about your story will do.

Comment author: gwern 24 February 2012 04:21:52AM 1 point [-]

There is this city called Acre where things are pretty swell except for this one guy who has a lousy job; by a well-specified mechanism, his job makes him an accessary to murders which preserve the swell conditions. He understands all this and accepts the overwhelmingly valid moral considerations, but still feels guilty - in any human paradise, there will be a flaw.

Comment author: Alicorn 24 February 2012 04:37:42AM 2 points [-]

Since the mechanism is well-specified, can you specify it?

Comment author: gwern 24 February 2012 05:02:53AM 0 points [-]

I thought it was pretty clear in the story. It's not easy coming up with analogues to crypto, and there's probably holes in my lock scheme, but good enough for a story.

Comment author: Alicorn 24 February 2012 05:11:02AM *  4 points [-]

I thought it was pretty clear in the story.

Please explain it anyway.

(It never goes well for me when I reply to this sort of thing with snark. So I edited away a couple of drafts of snark.)

Comment author: [deleted] 24 February 2012 05:37:14AM 4 points [-]

It's a prediction market where the predictions (that we care about, anyway) are all of the form "I bet X that Y will die on date Z."

Comment author: Alicorn 24 February 2012 05:55:27AM *  3 points [-]

Okay, and I imagine this would incentivize assassins, but how is this helping society be pretty swell for most people, and what is the one guy's job exactly? (Can you not bet on the deaths of arbitrary people, only people it is bad to have around? Is the one guy supposed to determine who it's bad to have around or something and only allow bets on those folks? How does he determine that, if so?)

Comment author: [deleted] 24 February 2012 06:36:29AM 7 points [-]

Everything you'd want to know about assassination markets.

but how is this helping society be pretty swell for most people, and what is the one guy's job exactly?

Incentive to cooperate? A reduction in the necessity of war, which is by nature an inefficient use of resources? From the story:

The wise men of that city had devised the practice when it became apparent to them that the endless clashes of armies on battlefields led to no lasting conclusion, nor did they extirpate the roots of the conflicts. Rather, they merely wasted the blood and treasure of the people. It was clear to them that those rulers led their people into death and iniquity, while remaining untouched themselves, lounging in comfort and luxury amidst the most crushing defeat.

It was better that a few die before their time than the many. It was better that a little wealth go to the evil than much; better that conflicts be ended dishonorably once and for all, than fought honorably time and again; and better that peace be ill-bought than bought honestly at too high a price to be borne. So they thought.

Moving on.

(Can you not bet on the deaths of arbitrary people, only people it is bad to have around?

Nope, "badness" is determined by the market.

Is the one guy supposed to determine who it's bad to have around or something and only allow bets on those folks? How does he determine that, if so?)

The "merchant of death" diffuses the legal culpability associated with betting on the assassination market. The tension in the narrative comes from him feeling ever so slightly morally culpable for the assassinations, even though he only "causes" them indirectly. Again from the story:

Through judicious use of an intermediary (the merchant of death), the predictor could make his prediction, pay the fee, and collect the reward while remaining unknown to all save one.

Comment author: Alicorn 24 February 2012 06:50:21AM 2 points [-]

I think I get it. I have worldbuilding disagreements with this but am no longer bewildered. Thank you!

Comment author: pedanterrific 24 February 2012 07:14:41AM 1 point [-]

So, I have some questions: how could you actually make money from this? It seems like the idea is that people place bets on the date that they're planning to assassinate the target themselves. So... where's the rest of the money come from, previous failed attempts? I'm not sure that "A whole bunch of guys tried to assassinate the president and got horribly slaughtered for their trouble. That means killing him'd make me rich! Where's my knife?" is a realistic train of thought.

Comment author: hairyfigment 24 February 2012 06:11:41AM 8 points [-]

"Omelas" contrasts the happiness of the citizens with the misery of the child. I couldn't tell from your story that the tradesman felt unusually miserable, nor that the other people of his city felt unusually happy. Nor do I know how this affects your reply to LeGuin, since I can't detect the reply.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit