You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Prismattic comments on Torturing people for fun - Less Wrong Discussion

13 Post author: cousin_it 14 February 2011 08:52PM

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

Comments (44)

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

Comment author: Prismattic 15 February 2011 01:53:06AM 2 points [-]

I had precisely the same reaction about the persistent effects of torture over time when I read the torture vs. dust specks problem.

I think your reply to the original question highlights a difficulty with actual application of utilitarian thought experiments in concrete situations. The question as originally posed involved inflicting disutility on a random target by pushing a button, presumably with the actor and the target being mutually unaware of each other's identities. When you substitute punching someone, even if the target is randomly chosen, the thought experiment breaks down, both because it becomes difficult to predict the actual amount of suffering that is going to result (e.g. the target has a black belt and/or concealed weapon and no sense of humor = more pain than you were expecting), and because of second order effects: a world in which inflicting random pain is considered justified if it produces a greater amount of fun for other individuals is going to be a world with a lot less social trust, reducing utility for everybody.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 15 February 2011 06:45:20AM 3 points [-]

But, hang on. Grant that there's some amount of disutility from permanent damage caused by torture. Nevertheless, as you add more specks, at some point you're going to have added more disutility, right? Suppose the torture victim lives for fifty years after you're done with him, and he's an emotional and physical wreck for every day of those fifty years; nevertheless, this is a finite amount of disutility and can be compensated for by inserting a sufficient number of Knuth up-arrows between the numerals. Right?