V_V comments on A discussion of heroic responsibility - LessWrong

39 Post author: Swimmer963 29 October 2014 04:22AM

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

Comments (215)

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

Comment author: V_V 03 November 2014 01:56:06PM 0 points [-]

So "heroic responsibility" just means "total utilitarianism"?

Comment author: Philip_W 03 November 2014 08:09:02PM 2 points [-]

No: the concept that our ethics is utilitarian is independent from the concept that it is the only acceptable way of making decisions (where "acceptable" is an emotional/moral term).

Comment author: V_V 03 November 2014 08:43:22PM 3 points [-]

What is an acceptable way of making decisions (where "acceptable" is an emotional/moral term) looks like an ethical question, how can it be independent from your ethics?

Comment author: Philip_W 04 November 2014 08:06:43PM 1 point [-]

In ethics, the question would be answered by "yes, this ethical system is the only acceptable way to make decisions" by definition. In practice, this fact is not sufficient to make more than 0.01% of the world anywhere near heroically responsible (~= considering ethics the only emotionally/morally/role-followingly acceptable way of making decisions), so apparently the question is not decided by ethics.

Instead, roles and emotions play a large part in determining what is acceptable. In western society, the role of someone who is responsible for everything and not in the corresponding position of power is "the hero". Yudkowsky (and HPJEV) might have chosen to be heroically responsible because he knows it is the consistent/rational conclusion of human morality and he likes being consistent/rational very much, or because he likes being a hero, or more likely a combination of both. The decision is made due to the role he wants to lead, not due to the ethics itself.

Comment author: Kenny 09 November 2014 04:12:32AM 0 points [-]

It just means 'consequentalism'.

Comment author: V_V 09 November 2014 10:45:05AM 1 point [-]

There are various types of consequentalism. The lack of distinction between ethical necessity and supererogation, and the general focus about optimizing the world, are typical of utilitarianism, which is in fact often associated with effective altruism (although it is not strictly necessary for it).

Comment author: Kenny 10 November 2014 07:05:37PM 1 point [-]

I think it applies to any and all of them just as well, but I (very stupidly) didn't realize until now that utilitarianism is (a type of) consequentialism.