Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Multiheaded comments on Mapping Fun Theory onto the challenges of ethical foie gras - Less Wrong Discussion

34 Post author: HonoreDB 07 December 2011 08:47PM

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

Comments (62)

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

Comment author: Multiheaded 24 February 2012 06:16:45AM 0 points [-]

(Another objection: it sounds more and more like the Christian take on the problem of evil, which is to say: fuck the deity that thinks it's best for us, we should take care of ourselves instead. Even if we should grow lazier and more complacent, real suffering has a higher moral cost than whatever qualities our life might lose.

Didn't most people here agree that the society of Brave New World, whatever its flaws and vices, is better than the current one?)

Comment author: TheOtherDave 24 February 2012 06:29:37PM 1 point [-]

I'm pretty sure I'm not altogether following your thought process here, but yes, insofar as "the Christian take on the problem of evil" is to posit that human nature is such that current evil is a necessary condition of ultimately improving the human condition, then this hypothetical sounds somewhat like it. (Of course, the Christian version also has to account for why an all-powerful creator God caused human nature to have that property, which this hypothetical does not.)

As for relative moral costs... (shrug) as I've said repeatedly in this thread, I don't know. More precisely... I agree that in the world where we choose between (lazy, complacent, and non-suffering) and (non-lazy, non-complacent, and suffering) it might well be preferable to eliminate suffering at the cost of laziness and complacency. But in the world where we choose between (lazy, complacent, and non-suffering for eternity) and (non-lazy, non-complacent, and suffering for a while, followed by much higher levels of anti-suffering for eternity), it's not clear the same conclusion arises.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 24 February 2012 09:01:39AM 1 point [-]

Didn't most people here agree that the society of Brave New World, whatever its flaws and vices, is better than the current one?

No, they don't. Put "Brave New World" into the LessWrong Google box and see for yourself.

But I think you're just asking a rhetorical question as a way of saying that you do think that, without actually saying so.

Comment author: Multiheaded 24 February 2012 09:52:48AM 0 points [-]

Um, I'm surprised. I definitely saw something to the effect of that.