As far as I can tell, humanity has been very-approximately doing this for a long time already, and calling it moral philosophy. This isn’t to say that all moral philosophy is a good approach to acausal normativity, nor that many moral philosophers would accept acausal normativity as a framing on the questions they are trying to answer
Yes, importantly: As a result of not having this formalism, I get the impression that, for instance, Kant understood Kant’s Categorical Imperative with less precision than Yudkowsky does, and I see no indications that Yudkowsky ever read Kant. Although this is what moral philosophers have been doing this whole time, it should be emphasized that they didn’t understand how it emerged from decision theory, they’ve been very very confused and most of their stuff will want to be rewritten in this frame.
The aside about respecting boundaries should probably be removed. You don’t justify or motivate boundaries well enough here, and it doesn’t really seem to me that you do in the sequence either. Even if it is a useful paradigm, I actually question whether it has much relevance to acausalism, my experience is that a lot of negotiation theory will seem to an acausalist to be deeply premised on acausal trade, but it turns out that the negotiation theory works almost exactly the same in the causal world and we missed that because our head isn’t in that world any more.
Yes, importantly: As a result of not having this formalism, I get the impression that, for instance, Kant understood Kant’s Categorical Imperative with less precision than Yudkowsky does, and I see no indications that Yudkowsky ever read Kant. Although this is what moral philosophers have been doing this whole time, it should be emphasized that they didn’t understand how it emerged from decision theory, they’ve been very very confused and most of their stuff will want to be rewritten in this frame.
The aside about respecting boundaries should probably be removed. You don’t justify or motivate boundaries well enough here, and it doesn’t really seem to me that you do in the sequence either. Even if it is a useful paradigm, I actually question whether it has much relevance to acausalism, my experience is that a lot of negotiation theory will seem to an acausalist to be deeply premised on acausal trade, but it turns out that the negotiation theory works almost exactly the same in the causal world and we missed that because our head isn’t in that world any more.