= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open thread, Sept. 1-7, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (162)
That's a fully generalizable argument more or less lifted from Christianity's playbook X-/
I think I'm OK with that, on balance. Most people have a natural tendency to feel they deserve nicer things, regardless of how nice their things are. Having a societal rule that says the opposite will tend to correct for that.
And hey, it's been effective. Why throw away a tool that works because the people who invented it disagree with us? We can even use it more effectively.
I think I'm not OK with that, at all.
It seems our value systems are sufficiently different here. You go ahead and feel as much guilt as you want. I'll pass.
What is the problem with an overall societal rule which compensates for a known widespread bias? I don't agree that there is difference in values here.
Really? You're telling me my values aren't different from yours? And how do you know, pray tell?
Nothing in what you've said previously articulates any kind of difference in the structure of what you value from mine, and you seem to be using "difference in values" as a stopsign.
If you want to tap out, say so and I will drop the point entirely, but I think the reason you have given is disingenuous and want to find out what your real objection is. I'm not wedded to this position; it was a throwaway remark that I am defending because I don't see any reason to reject it. If you have principled reasons to reject this social rule, which would cause discomfort with the status quo and as far as I can tell therefore push society further toward a Pareto optimum, please tell them to me.
The exchange "I think I'm OK with that, on balance" -- "I think I'm not OK with that, at all" does not count..?
No, I use it in its literal meaning. Differences in values certainly exist and are quite common.
Think about it. What does "social rule" mean? Who sets it? Who controls it? Who enforces it and how? What about costs of that rule -- e.g. a higher number of suicides? What about different sensitivities to the rule -- people who tend to feel a bit guilty anyway will feel VERY guilty while sociopaths will be happy to ignore it?
My principled objection is to emotional manipulation of people for the sake of some theoretical movement towards some theoretical optimum.
So the current set of social rules present in society at large don't count as emotional manipulation, but any change would?
I still don't see a difference in values; I have a different impression of expected magnitude of the costs and benefits and I consider the benefits relatively large and the costs relatively small. Unless you would actually refuse that cost for any amount of benefit, I'm pretty sure the "difference in values" is purely quantitative, not qualitative, and probably of a fairly small degree.
What exactly do you mean by "social rules"?
Alice a gourmand and a supertaster who finds great enjoyment in fine food. She values tasty food. Bob treats food as an inconvenience and would prefer not to eat at all if his nutritional needs were met in some magical way. He does not value tasty food.
But offer Alice a million dollars to live on Soylent for a month and she'll take the offer -- the cost-benefit balance is appealing to her.
Is the difference in values between Alice and Bob "purely quantitative"?