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.

RichardKennaway comments on Eudaimonic Utilitarianism - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: Darklight 04 September 2013 07:43PM

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

Comments (34)

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

Comment author: RichardKennaway 08 September 2013 08:33:41PM 0 points [-]

Note that not wireheading would be forcing future consciousness moments to undergo suffering. We think that this is justified because present-me has "special authority" over future-mes,

Speak for yourself. I think that not wireheading is justified because wireheading is equivalent to being dead. It's a way of committing suicide, only to be considered as a last resort in the face of unendurable and incurable suffering, and even then I'd rather be actually dead.

Comment author: CAE_Jones 08 September 2013 09:11:29PM 0 points [-]

I'd only consider wireheading equivalent to death from an outsider's perspective. It's interesting that you'd treat converting a suicidal person into someone modded to happiness worse than a suicidal person ceasing to exist; I can think of a few possible reasons for that, but the only one that appeals to me personally is that a wireheaded person would be a resource drain. (The others strike me as avoidable given a sufficiently patient wireheader overlord, rather than the "just pump them full of orgasmium" overlord).

Comment author: RichardKennaway 08 September 2013 10:24:53PM -1 points [-]

Wireheading is a snare and a delusion. An ethical theory that would wirehead the entire population as the ultimate good has fallen at the first hurdle.