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.

NancyLebovitz comments on Open thread, Oct. 13 - Oct. 19, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: MrMind 13 October 2014 08:17AM

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

Comments (355)

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

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 16 October 2014 02:40:45PM 4 points [-]

since it's hard to argue that chronically malnourished lives have positive value on the margin.

It's rather easy to argue-- they don't kill themselves, so they presumably think their lives are worth living.

Comment author: gjm 16 October 2014 03:56:27PM 6 points [-]

That's an easy argument but I'm not sure it's a correct one. The answers to the following questions may be different:

  • Is it a good thing on the whole that A exists?
  • Now that A already exists, does A want to commit suicide?

for at least the following reasons:

  • Other people will be negatively affected (it may be worse to get to know someone and have them commit suicide, than never to encounter them at all).
  • People have an inbuilt preference for staying alive, for obvious biological reasons, so someone may go on wanting to live well beyond the point at which each day of life is substantially negative for them. (Just as someone may go on wanting to take heroin well beyond the point at which they'd be happier if they stopped.)
Comment author: [deleted] 17 October 2014 07:26:59AM 1 point [-]

Even without taking into account cognitive biases and externalities, that argument only applies to people who don't believe in afterlife: if you thought that by killing yourself you would go to hell and by enduring shit thirty more years you would go to heaven, you'd think twice before picking the former.