= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Holden's Objection 1: Friendliness is dangerous - LessWrong
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 (428)
Sorry, I'm being unclear. Let me try again.
For simplicity, let us say that T(x) = TRUE if x is sufficiently moral to include in CEV, and FALSE otherwise. (I don't mean to posit that we've actually implemented such a test.)
I'm asking if you mean to distinguish between:
(1) CEV includes x where T(x) = TRUE and x is human, and
(2) CEV includes x where T(x) = TRUE
I'm still not sure I understand the question. That said, there are two issues here.
First, I would expect CEV(Klingon) to output something if CEV(human) does, but I'm not aware of any actual species that I would expect CEV(non-human species) to output for. If such a species existed (i.e. CEV(dolphins) outputs a morality), I would advocate strongly for something very like equal rights between humans and dolphins.
But even in that circumstance, I would be very surprised if CEV(all dolphins & all humans) outputted something other than "Humans, do CEV(humanity). Dolphins, do CEV(dolphin)"
Of course, I don't expect CEV(all of humanity ever) to output because I reject moral realism.
I think that answers my question. Thanks.