While I feel that the Repugnant Conclusion has an obvious answer, and that SPECKS vs. TORTURE has an obvious answer,
I wonder if the reason you think your answers are obvious is that you learned about scope insensitivity, see the obvious stupidity of that, and then jumped to the opposite conclusion, that life must be valued without any discounting whatsoever.
But perhaps there is a happy middle ground between the crazy kind of moral discounting that humans naively do, and no discounting. And even if that’s not the case, if the right answer really does lie on the extreme of the space of possibilities instead of the much larger interior, I don’t see how that conclusion could be truly obvious.
In general, your sense of obviousness might to turned up a bit too high. As evidence of that, there were times when I apparently convinced you of the “obvious” correctness or importance of some idea before I’d convinced myself.
Notice that, as was mentioned, torture vs. specks also works for average utilitarianism: in that case, the negative effect of torture is effectively divided by the huge number of people, making it negligible in comparison with a speck, in contrast with total utilitarianism that multiplies the effect of a speck by the number of people, making it huge in comparison with that of torture. So, it’s not so much about the extent of discounting, as about asymmetric discounting, which would make the problem depend on who the tortured person is.
I misread Vladimir’s comment as “torture vs. specks only works for average” … when in fact he said “also works”. So what I said was in fact already obvious to him. My apologies.
Avg utility for torture is (Nk-T)/N. Avg utility for dust specs is (Nk-bD)/N
where n is the number (3^^3^^3) who’d get dust specks, N>n is the total number of people, and per person: k is the mean utility, and T and D are the (negative) utilities of torture and a single dust speck, respectively.
For the total utility, just remove the ”/(n+b)” part. There’s no difference in which you should prefer under avg. vs total.
A small change—the differences between average and total utility occur in decisions on whether to create a person or not. Average utilitarians create people if their utility would be higher than average, while toatl utilitarians create people if their utility would be positive.
That’s true. I was only addressing dust specks vs. torture, where people are neither created nor destroyed. Just saying that would have been sufficient; it’s a generally sufficient condition for the preferred outcome to be the same under avg. vs total.
I wonder if the reason you think your answers are obvious is that you learned about scope insensitivity, see the obvious stupidity of that, and then jumped to the opposite conclusion, that life must be valued without any discounting whatsoever.
But perhaps there is a happy middle ground between the crazy kind of moral discounting that humans naively do, and no discounting. And even if that’s not the case, if the right answer really does lie on the extreme of the space of possibilities instead of the much larger interior, I don’t see how that conclusion could be truly obvious.
In general, your sense of obviousness might to turned up a bit too high. As evidence of that, there were times when I apparently convinced you of the “obvious” correctness or importance of some idea before I’d convinced myself.
Notice that, as was mentioned, torture vs. specks also works for average utilitarianism: in that case, the negative effect of torture is effectively divided by the huge number of people, making it negligible in comparison with a speck, in contrast with total utilitarianism that multiplies the effect of a speck by the number of people, making it huge in comparison with that of torture. So, it’s not so much about the extent of discounting, as about asymmetric discounting, which would make the problem depend on who the tortured person is.
I misread Vladimir’s comment as “torture vs. specks only works for average” … when in fact he said “also works”. So what I said was in fact already obvious to him. My apologies.
Avg utility for torture is (Nk-T)/N. Avg utility for dust specs is (Nk-bD)/N
where n is the number (3^^3^^3) who’d get dust specks, N>n is the total number of people, and per person: k is the mean utility, and T and D are the (negative) utilities of torture and a single dust speck, respectively.
For the total utility, just remove the ”/(n+b)” part. There’s no difference in which you should prefer under avg. vs total.
A small change—the differences between average and total utility occur in decisions on whether to create a person or not. Average utilitarians create people if their utility would be higher than average, while toatl utilitarians create people if their utility would be positive.
And if they would not, in existing, decrease anyone else’s utility by enough to offset their own.
That’s true. I was only addressing dust specks vs. torture, where people are neither created nor destroyed. Just saying that would have been sufficient; it’s a generally sufficient condition for the preferred outcome to be the same under avg. vs total.