ImmortalRationalist comments on Ethical Inhibitions - Less Wrong

21 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 19 October 2008 08:44PM

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

Comments (62)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: ImmortalRationalist 25 April 2015 06:52:54AM 0 points [-]

Humans underestimating the chance of being caught seems to beg the question of why they underestimate the chance of being caught in the first place. Why have humans evolved ethical inhibition, as opposed to a better sense of the likelihood of being caught? Still, evolution isn't perfect.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 25 April 2015 07:30:55PM 1 point [-]

I suspect that humans have evolved a better sense of the likelihood of being caught, many times. The thing is, one of the things such a sense is useful for is improving our ability to cheat with impunity. Which creates more selection pressure to get better at catching cheaters, which reduces our ability to reliably estimate the likelihood of being caught.