I don’t think this idea works as constructed here, but perhaps a better construction is possible.
Concrete example
Stamp collecting is Cosmic Schelling (CS) bad. We define stamps as a particular arrangement of matter. When we introduce this arrangement of matter into arbitrary civilizations throughout the multiverse, depending on the local physics, chemistry, and biology, or local equivalents thereof, it is likely to cause substantial disruption. While in some locales this may be a positive disruption, due to entropy considerations it is more likely to be a negative disruption. Meanwhile the case that stamp-collecting is CS-good rests largely on the enjoyment of stamp collectors, who are rare in the multiverse.
Further, stamp collecting is Terrestrial Human Schelling (THS) Bad. Most humans don’t enjoy stamp collecting, so most humans would experience it as an expenditure of resources for no gain, or insufficient gain relative to the opportunity cost. Forced into a binary choice between Good and Bad, the obvious Schelling Point is Bad. While a particular act of stamp collecting by someone who enjoys stamp collecting is beneficial, that is an edge case.
By extension many specific things are going to come out as CS-Bad and THS-Bad. Exclusively drinking milk is good for newborns but bad for the majority of humans, and presumably bad for the majority of sentient beings in the multiverse, so it comes out as CS-Bad. By Encouragement Asymmetry this discourages the behavior. That doesn’t dominate the consideration of keeping a baby alive, in my opinion, but somehow its milkiness “counts against it in a moral evaluation”.
Various problems
Binary. A Cosmic Schelling question can only be answered Good or Bad. There’s no third option. Thus, every property must be either CS-Good or CS-Bad. The name Martin is either CS-Good or CS-Bad. Posting on LessWrong is either CS-Good or CS-Bad. CS-Ethics allows us to say that we don’t know the answer to these questions, yet, but there must be an answer, and it must be CS-Good or CS-Bad. Whereas in normal morality, many things are not morally relevant, and many others are best answered “It Depends”.
Non-Deciding. Because every concrete action has many properties, and because every property is either CS-Good or CS-Bad, every concrete action has many points both for or against it, perhaps infinitely many. How would we resolve these to determine whether the concrete action is, all things considered, CS-Good or CS-Bad? Out of scope of this essay.
Non-Constructive. Entire categories of actions can have this problem. Consider, for example, pareto-positive stealing. This is the rare case of stealing where the theft benefits both parties, for example when I left an unwanted bike on my porch, and someone stole it, saving me a trip to dispose of it. Pareto-positive actions are CS-Good, stealing is CS-Bad. Pareto-positive stealing is … well it’s either CS-Good or CS-Bad, because ties are impossible. But I can’t deduce this answer from my prior deductions about stealing or pareto-positive actions. It’s a separate thought experiment.
I don’t think this idea works as constructed here, but perhaps a better construction is possible.
Concrete example
Stamp collecting is Cosmic Schelling (CS) bad. We define stamps as a particular arrangement of matter. When we introduce this arrangement of matter into arbitrary civilizations throughout the multiverse, depending on the local physics, chemistry, and biology, or local equivalents thereof, it is likely to cause substantial disruption. While in some locales this may be a positive disruption, due to entropy considerations it is more likely to be a negative disruption. Meanwhile the case that stamp-collecting is CS-good rests largely on the enjoyment of stamp collectors, who are rare in the multiverse.
Further, stamp collecting is Terrestrial Human Schelling (THS) Bad. Most humans don’t enjoy stamp collecting, so most humans would experience it as an expenditure of resources for no gain, or insufficient gain relative to the opportunity cost. Forced into a binary choice between Good and Bad, the obvious Schelling Point is Bad. While a particular act of stamp collecting by someone who enjoys stamp collecting is beneficial, that is an edge case.
By extension many specific things are going to come out as CS-Bad and THS-Bad. Exclusively drinking milk is good for newborns but bad for the majority of humans, and presumably bad for the majority of sentient beings in the multiverse, so it comes out as CS-Bad. By Encouragement Asymmetry this discourages the behavior. That doesn’t dominate the consideration of keeping a baby alive, in my opinion, but somehow its milkiness “counts against it in a moral evaluation”.
Various problems
Binary. A Cosmic Schelling question can only be answered Good or Bad. There’s no third option. Thus, every property must be either CS-Good or CS-Bad. The name Martin is either CS-Good or CS-Bad. Posting on LessWrong is either CS-Good or CS-Bad. CS-Ethics allows us to say that we don’t know the answer to these questions, yet, but there must be an answer, and it must be CS-Good or CS-Bad. Whereas in normal morality, many things are not morally relevant, and many others are best answered “It Depends”.
Non-Deciding. Because every concrete action has many properties, and because every property is either CS-Good or CS-Bad, every concrete action has many points both for or against it, perhaps infinitely many. How would we resolve these to determine whether the concrete action is, all things considered, CS-Good or CS-Bad? Out of scope of this essay.
Non-Constructive. Entire categories of actions can have this problem. Consider, for example, pareto-positive stealing. This is the rare case of stealing where the theft benefits both parties, for example when I left an unwanted bike on my porch, and someone stole it, saving me a trip to dispose of it. Pareto-positive actions are CS-Good, stealing is CS-Bad. Pareto-positive stealing is … well it’s either CS-Good or CS-Bad, because ties are impossible. But I can’t deduce this answer from my prior deductions about stealing or pareto-positive actions. It’s a separate thought experiment.