Comment author: Nornagest 12 November 2011 01:06:04AM *  1 point [-]

It is simple why I chose 10. It is to highlight the paradox of those who choose to torture. I have made it easier for you. Lets see that we increase 10 to 3^^^3 deprived rapists. The point is, if you surely would not let the victim be raped when there are 3^^^3 deprived rapists suffering, you surely would not allow it to happen if it was only 10 suffering rapists. So with that said, how is it different?

I just went over how the scenarios differ from each other in considerable detail. I could repeat myself in grotesque detail, but I'm starting to think it wouldn't buy very much for me, for you, or for anyone who might be reading this exchange.

So let's try another angle. It sounds to me like you're trying to draw an ethical equivalence between dust-subjects in TvDS and rapists in TVCR: more than questionable in real life, but I'll grant that level of suffering to the latter for the sake of argument. Also misses the point of drawing attention to scope insensitivity, but that's only obvious if you're running a utilitarian framework already, so let's go ahead and drop it for now. That leaves us with the mathematics of the scenarios, which do have something close to the same form.

Specifically: in both cases we're depriving some single unlucky subject of N utility in exchange for not withholding N * K utility divided up among several subjects for some K > 1. At this level we can establish a mapping between both thought experiments, although the exact K, the number of subjects, and the normative overtones are vastly, sillily different between the two.

Fine so far, but you seem to be treating this as an open-and-shut argument on its own: "you surely would not let the victim [suffer]". Well, that's begging the question, isn't it? From a utilitarian perspective it doesn't matter how many people we divide up N * K among, be it ten or some Knuth up-arrow abomination, as long as the resulting suffering can register as suffering. The fewer slices we use, the more our flawed moral intuitions take notice of them and the more commensurate they look; actually, for small numbers of subjects it starts to look like a choice between letting one person suffer horribly and doing the same to multiple people, at which point the right answer is either trivially obvious or cognate to the trolley problem depending on how we cast it.

About the only way I can make sense of what you're saying is by treating the N case -- and not just for the sake of argument, but as an unquestioned base assumption -- as a special kind of evil, incommensurate with any lesser crime. Which, frankly, I don't. It all gets mapped to people's preferences in the end, no matter how squicky and emotionally loaded the words you choose to describe it are.

Comment author: D227 12 November 2011 02:51:09AM *  -1 points [-]

From a utilitarian perspective it doesn't matter how many people we divide up N * K among, be it ten or some Knuth up-arrow abomination, as long as the resulting suffering can register as suffering.

I agree with this statement 100%. That was the point in my TvCR thought experiment. People who obviously picked T should again pick T. No one except one commentor actually conceded this point.

The fewer slices we use, the more our flawed moral intuitions take notice of them and the more commensurate they look; actually, for small numbers of subjects it starts to look like a choice between letting one person suffer horribly and doing the same to multiple people, at which point the right answer is either trivially obvious or cognate to the trolley problem depending on how we cast it.

Again, I feel as if you are making my argument for me. The problem is as you say obvious to the trolley problem on how we cast it.

You say my experiment is not really the same as Eliezer's. fine. If doesn't matter because we could just use your example. If utilitarians do not care for how many people we divide N*K with, then these utilitarians should state that they would indeed allow T to happen no matter what subject matter the K is as long as K is >1

Comment author: Grognor 11 November 2011 11:44:49PM *  0 points [-]

You must have missed the part of my response where I say that given your premises, yes, I choose to let the fucking rapists commit the crime. The rest of my post just details how your premises are wrong. I am internally consistent.

Your comment was saying that "if you change your answer here, it shows that you are not consistent." I replied with reasons that this is not true, and you replied by continuing on the premise that it is true.

No! You do not get to decide whether I'm consistent!

See also this comment, which deserves a medal. Your problem is wrong, which is why you're coming to this incorrect conclusion that I am inconsistent.

Comment author: D227 12 November 2011 01:37:31AM 0 points [-]

Grognor,

Thanks for your reply. You are right you are consistent as you did admit in your second scenario that you would let the sickos have their fun.

I would like to continue the discussion on why my problem is wrong in a friendly and respectable way, but the negative score points really are threatening my ability to post, which is quite unfortunate.

Comment author: Nornagest 11 November 2011 08:41:28PM *  2 points [-]

I will consider this claim, if you can show my how it is really different.

Torture vs. Dust Specks attempts to illustrate scope insensitivity in ethical thought by contrasting a large unitary disutility against a fantastically huge number of small disutilities. And I really do mean fantastically huge: if the experiences are ethically commensurate at all (as is implied by most utilitarian systems of ethics), it's large enough to swamp any reasonable discounting you might choose to perform for any reason. It also has the advantage of being relatively independent of questions of "right" or "deserving": aside from the bare fact of their suffering, there's nothing about either the dust-subjects or the torture-subject that might skew us one way or another. Most well-reasoned objections to TvDS boil down to finding ways to make the two options incommensurate.

Your Ten Very Committed Rapists example (still not happy about that choice of subject, by the way) throws out scope issues almost entirely. Ten subjects vs. one subject is an almost infinitely more tractable ratio than 3^3^3^3 vs. one, and that allows us to argue for one option or another by discounting one of the options for any number of reasons. On top of that, there's a strong normative component: we're naturally much less inclined to favor people who get their jollies from socially condemned action, even if we've got a quasi-omniscient being standing in front of us and saying that their suffering is large and genuine.

Long story short, about all these scenarios have in common is the idea of weighing suffering against a somehow greater suffering. Torture vs. Dust Specks was trying to throw light on a fairly specific subset of scenarios like that, of which your example isn't a member. Nozick's utility monster, by contrast, is doing something quite a lot like you are, i.e. leveraging an intuition pump based on a viscerally horrible utilitarian positive. I don't see the positive vs. negative utility distinction as terribly important in this context, but if it bothers you you could easily construct a variant Utility Monster in which Utilizilla's terrible but nonfatal hunger is temporarily assuaged by each sentient victim or something.

Comment author: D227 12 November 2011 12:07:49AM 0 points [-]

Torture vs. Dust Specks attempts to illustrate scope insensitivity in ethical thought by contrasting a large unitary disutility against a fantastically huge number of small disutilities

Your Ten Very Committed Rapists example (still not happy about that choice of subject, by the way) throws out scope issues almost entirely. Ten subjects vs. one subject is an almost infinitely more tractable ratio than 3^3^3^3 vs. one, and that allows us to argue for one option or another by discounting one of the options for any number of reasons.

I do sincerely apologize if you are offended, but rape is torture as well and Eliezer's example can be equally if not more reprehensible.

It is simple why I chose 10. It is to highlight the paradox of those who choose to torture. I have made it easier for you. Lets see that we increase 10 to 3^^^3 deprived rapists. The point is, if you surely would not let the victim be raped when there are 3^^^3 deprived rapists suffering, you surely would not allow it to happen if it was only 10 suffering rapists. So with that said, how is it different?

Comment author: RichardKennaway 11 November 2011 09:58:06PM 2 points [-]

Excellent points. I now seek your consistency to test your beliefs. Prepare yourself to hear a sick and twisted problem.

The problem with your problem is that it is wrong. You have Omega asserting something we have good reason to disbelieve. You might as well have Omega come in and announce that there is an entity somewhere who will suffer dreadfully if we don't start eating babies.

All you're saying is "suppose <evil thing> were actually good"? Well, suppose away. So what?

Do you see the difference between your Omega and the one who poses Newcomb's problem?

Comment author: D227 11 November 2011 11:55:09PM -1 points [-]

Richard

I sincerely appreciate your reply. Why do we accept Omega in Eleizers thought experiment and not mine? In the original some people claim to obviously pick torture, yet unwilling to pick rape because why? Well, like you said, you refuse to believe that rapist suffer. That is fair. But if that is fair, then Bob might refuse to believe that people with specks in their eyes suffer as well...

You can not assign rules for one and not the other.

All you're saying is "suppose <evil thing> were actually good"? Well, suppose away. So what?

Not true. I am saying that some people get utility from evil. Not me, not you but why am I not allowed to use that as an example?

Bottom line is that I personaly am unresolved and I will remain unresolved rationally across all examples. I know what I would do. I would 3^^^3 pick dust and follow up with 3^^^3 deprived rapists. But for strong "torturers" such as Grognor, depriving rapists will be inconsistent with his beliefs.

Comment author: Grognor 11 November 2011 10:48:44PM *  0 points [-]

There are two major problems with your proposition.

One is that Omega appears to be lying in this problem, very simply. In the universe where he isn't lying, though...

I'm partly what you'd call a "negative utilitarian". That's minimize suffering first, then maximize joy. It does not appear to me that not being able to rape people for a small number of hedonists (like, say, the number of rapists on the planet) is greater than the suffering that would be inflicted if they had their way.

If you accept those premises I just put forward, then you understand that my choice is to stop the rapists for utilitarian reasons also because I don't want them to do this again.

So okay, least-convenient possible world time. Given that they won't cause any additional suffering after this incident, given that their suffering from not being able to commit rape is greater than the victim's (why this would be true I have no idea), then sure, whatever, let them have their fun shortly before their logically ridiculous universe is destroyed because the consequences of this incident as interpreted by our universe would not occur.

I hope this justifies my position from a utilitarian standpoint, though I do have deontological concerns about rape. It's one of those things that seems to Actually Be Unacceptable, but I hope I've put this intuition sufficiently aside to address your concerns.

One more thing... It kind of pisses me off that people still bring up the torture vs. dust specks thing. From where I stand, the debate is indisputably settled. But, ah, I guess you might call that "arrogance". But whatever.

Comment author: D227 11 November 2011 11:38:08PM *  -1 points [-]

Then you are not consistent. For one example you are willing to allow suffering because the 50 years of torture is less than 3^^^3 dust holocaust yet. You claim that suffering is suffering. Yet only 10 deprived rapist already has you changing your thoughts.

I do not have an answer. If anything I would consider my self a weak dusk specker. The only thing that I claim is I am not arrogant, I am consistent in my stance. I do not know the answer but am willing to explore the dilemma of torture vs speck, and rape vs deprived rapists. Torture is rape is it not? Yet I will allow torture for 50 years because you do not believe that deprived rapist are not suffering. I am afraid that is not up to you to decide.

All I ask is to present tough questions. The down votes I believe are hurting discussion as I have never declared any thing controversial accept ask people to reconcile their beliefs to be consistent. I am actually quite disappointing in how easily people are frustrated. I apologize if I have pissed you off.

Comment author: Nornagest 11 November 2011 07:31:44PM *  3 points [-]

You've essentially just constructed a Utility Monster. That's a rather different challenge to utilitarian ethics than Torture vs. Dust Specks, though; the latter is meant to be a straightforward scope insensitivity problem, while the former strikes at total-utility maximization by constructing an intuitively repugnant situation where the utility calculations come out positive. Unfortunately it looks like the lines between them have gotten a little blurry.

I'm really starting to hate thought experiments involving rape and torture, incidentally; the social need to signal "rape bad" and "torture bad" is so strong that it often overwhelms any insight they offer. Granted, there are perfectly good reasons to test theories on emotionally loaded subjects, but when that degenerates into judging ethical philosophy mostly by how intuitively benign it appears when applied to hideously deformed edge cases, it seems like something's gone wrong.

Comment author: D227 11 November 2011 07:53:26PM 0 points [-]

Unfortunately it looks like the lines between them have gotten a little blurry.

I will consider this claim, if you can show my how it is really different.

I have taken considerable care to construct a problem in which we are indeed are dealing with the trading suffering for potentially more suffering. It does not effect me one bit, that the topic has now switched from specks to rape. In fact if "detraction" happens, shouldn't it be the burden of the person who feels detracted to explain it? I merely ask for consistency.

In my mind I choose to affiliate with the I do not know the answer camp. There is no shame in that. I have not resolved the question yet. Yet there are people for whom it is obvious to choose torture, and refuse to answer the rape question. I am consistent in that I claim not to know or not to have resolved the question yet. May I ask for the same amount of consistency?

Comment author: DanielLC 11 November 2011 02:26:33AM 4 points [-]

Assume that dollars are utilons and they are linear (2 dollars indeed gives twice as much utility).

If each dollar gives the same amount of utility, then one person with $0 and one person with $1,000,000 would be just as good as two people with $500,000. That's how utility is defined. If Bob doesn't consider these choices just as good, then they do not give the same utility according to his PVG.

If you are a prioritarian, you'd go for specks. That said, I think you'd be less prioritarian if you had less of a scope insensitivity. If you really understood how much torture 3^^^3 dust specks produces, and you really understood how unlikely a 1/3^^^3 chance is, you'd probably go with torture.

Comment author: D227 11 November 2011 07:22:39PM -2 points [-]

If you really understood how much torture 3^^^3 dust specks produces...

You make a valid point. I will not deny that you have a strong point. All I ask is that you not deny me of having you remain consistent with your reasoning. I have reposted a thought experiment, please tell me what your answer is:

Omega has given you choice to allow or disallow 10 rapists to rape someone. Why 10 rapists? Omega knows the absolute utility across all humans, and unfortunately as terrible as it sounds, the suffering/torturing of 10 rapists not being able to rape is more suffering than what the victim feels. What do you do? 10 is < 3^^^3 suffering rapists. So lucky you, Omega need not burden you with the suffering of 3^^^3, if you chose to have rapist suffer. It is important that you not finagle your way out of the question. Please do not say that not being able to rape is not torture. Omega has already stated that indeed there is suffering for these rapist. It matters not if you would suffer such a thing.

Disclaimer: I am searching for the truth through rationality. I do not care whether the answer is torture, specks, or rape, only that it is the truth. If the rational answer is rape, I can do nothing but accept that for I am only in search of truth and not truth that fits me.

There are implications to choosing rape as the right answer. It means that in a rational society we must allow bad things to happen if that bad thing allows for total less suffering. We have to be consistent. Omega has given you a number of rapist far far far less than 3^^^3, surely you must allow for the rape to occur.

Literally, DanielLC, walks into a room with 10 rapists and a victim. The rapists tell him to "go away, and don't call the cops.". Omega appears and says, you may stop it if you want to, but I am all knowing and know that the utility experienced by the rapist or suffering from being deprived of raping is indeed greater than the suffering of the victim. What does Daniel do?

If you really understood how much torture 3^^^3 ~~dust specks~~ deprived rapists produces...

Comment author: peter_hurford 11 November 2011 05:10:05PM 0 points [-]

No one ever understands just how friggin large 3^^^3 is.

One could safely argue that it is better for the entire current world population to suffer a dust speck each than for someone to get tortured for fifty years, but expand that to 3^^^3 people? Radically different story.

Comment author: D227 11 November 2011 06:32:37PM *  -2 points [-]

That is the crux of the problem. Bob understands just as much as you claim you understand what 3^^^3 is. Yet he chooses the "Dust Holocaust".

First let me assume that you, peter_hurford, are a "Torturer" or rather, you are from the camp that obviously chooses 50 years. I have no doubt in my mind that you bring extremely rational and valid points to this discussions. You are poking holes in Bobs reasoning at its weakest points. This is a good thing.

I whole-heartedly concede that you have compelling points, by poking into holes into Bob's reasons. But lets start poking around your reasoning now.

Omega has given you choice to allow or disallow 10 rapist to rape someone. Why 10 rapist? Omega knows the absolute utility across all humans, and unfortunately as terrible as it sounds, the suffering/torturing of 10 rapist not being able to rape is more suffering than what the victim feels. What do you do? 10 is < 3^^^3 suffering rapists. So lucky you, Omega need not burden you with the suffering of 3^^^3, if you chose to have rapist suffer. It is important that you not finagle your way out of the question. Please do not say that not being able to rape is not torture. Omega has already stated that indeed there is suffering for these rapist. It matters not if you would suffer such a thing.

Disclaimer: I am searching for the truth through rationality. I do not care whether the answer is torture, specks, or rape, only that it is the truth. If the rational answer is rape, I can do nothing but accept that for I am only in search of truth and not truth that fits me.

There are implications to choosing rape as the right answer. It means that in a rational society we must allow bad things to happen if that bad thing allows for total less suffering. We have to be consistent. Omega has given you a number of rapist far far far less than 3^^^3, surely you must allow for the rape to occur.

Literally, peter_hurford ,walks into a room with 10 rapists and a victim. The rapists tell him to "go away, and don't call the cops.". Omega appears and says, you may stop it if you want to, but I am all knowing and know that the utility experienced by the rapist or suffering from being deprived of raping is indeed greater than the suffering of the victim. What does peter do?

Edit: Grammer

Comment author: Grognor 11 November 2011 08:08:40AM *  -1 points [-]

Having a utility function that allows an incomprehensible greater total suffering is a failure of epistemic, not instrumental, rationality. By choosing the dust specks, you implicitly assert that more suffering than has ever been known and ever will be known on Earth, times a hundred million billion trillion, is superior to a single torture victim.

This is probably the most patronizing thing I'll ever say on this website, but: Think about that for a second.

I'm only pointing this out because no one else mentioned that instrumental rationality is independent of what your goals are, so that says nothing about whether your goals are simply incorrect. (You don't really want the Dust Holocaust, do you? to allow that much suffering in exchange for, comparatively, nothing?)

I haven't read ALL the discussion about this issue, but that's because it's so damned simple if you seek to feel fully the implications of that number, that number that transcends any attempt to even describe.

Edited to add: here Pfft said to just take goals and make them axiomatic. That is literally impossible. You have to have a reason for every one of your goals, and all the better to have motivations based in fact, not fancy.

Comment author: D227 11 November 2011 05:24:29PM *  -3 points [-]

Excellent points. I now seek your consistency to test your beliefs. Prepare yourself to hear a sick and twisted problem.

Omega has given you choice to allow or disallow 10 rapist to rape someone. Why 10 rapist? Omega knows the absolute utility across all humans, and unfortunately as terrible as it sounds, the suffering/torturing of 10 rapist not being able to rape is more suffering than what the victim feels. What do you do? 10 is < 3^^^3 suffering rapists. So lucky you, Omega need not burden you with the suffering of 3^^^3, if you chose to have rapist suffer. It is important that you not finagle your way out of the question. Please do not say that not being able to rape is not torture. Omega has already stated that indeed there is suffering for these rapist. It matters not if you would suffer such a thing.

Disclaimer: I am searching for the truth through rationality. I do not care whether the answer is torture, specks, or rape, only that it is the truth. If the rational answer is rape, I can do nothing but accept that for I am only in search of truth and not truth that fits me.

There are implications to choosing rape as the right answer. It means that in a rational society we must allow bad things to happen if that bad thing allows for total less suffering. We have to be consistent. Omega has given you a number of rapist far far far less than 3^^^3, surely you must allow for the rape to occur.

Literally, Grognor walks into a room with 10 rapists and a victim. The rapists tell him to "go away, and don't call the cops.". Omega appears and says, you may stop it if you want to, but I am all knowing and know that the utility experienced by the rapist or suffering from being deprived of raping is indeed greater than the suffering of the victim. What does Grognor do?

Comment author: Manfred 11 November 2011 04:14:41AM 2 points [-]

Are you familiar with prospect theory? You seem to be describing what you (an imperfectly rational agent) would choose, simply using "PVG" to label the stuff that makes you choose what you actually choose, and you end up taking probability into consideration in a way similar to prospect theory.

Are you also familiar with the reasons why prospect theory and similar probability-dependent values are pretty certainly irrational?

Comment author: D227 11 November 2011 04:54:51AM 1 point [-]

Are you familiar with prospect theory?

No, but I will surely read up on that now.

You seem to be describing what you (an imperfectly rational agent) would choose, simply using "PVG" to label the stuff that makes you choose what you actually choose, and you end up taking probability into consideration in a way similar to prospect theory.

Absolutely. In fact I can see how a theist will simply say, "it is my PVG to believe in God, therefore It is rational for me to do so."

I do not have a response to that. I will need to learn more before I can work this out in my head. Thank you for the insightful comments.

View more: Next

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit