Would you be so kind as to justify this assertion for me? I find my imagination insufficient to the task of assigning equivalent utility metrics to “me in prison” == 0.25x “end of the species”.
Well, I give equivalent utility to “death of all the people I care about” and “end of the species.” Thinking about it harder I feel like “death of all the people I care about” is more like 10-100X worse than my own death. Me going to prison for murder is about as bad as my own death, so its more like .01-.1x end of humanity. Can you imagine that?
… I really hate it when people reject counterfactuals on the basis of their being counterfactuals alone. It’s a dishonest conversational tactic.
I was considering writing a long thing about your overconfidence in thinking you could carry out such a plan without any (I am presuming) experience doing that kind of thing. I was going to explain how badly you are underestimating the complexity of the world around you and overestimating how far you can stray from your own personal experience and still make reasonable predictions. But this is just a silly conversation that everyone else on LW seems to hate so y bother?
Me going to prison for murder is about as bad as my own death, so its more like .01-.1x end of humanity. Can you imagine that?
I’m curious, now, as to what nation or state you live in.
Thinking about it harder I feel like “death of all the people I care about” is more like 10-100X worse than my own death.
Well—in this scenario you are “going to die” regardless of the outcome. The only question is whether the people you care about will. Would you kill others (who were themselves also going to die if you did nothing) and allow yourself to die, if it would save people you cared about?
(Also, while it can lead to absurd consequences—Eliezer’s response to the Sims games for example—might I suggest a re-examination of your internal moral consistency? As it stands it seems like you’re allowing many of your moral intuitions to fall in line with evolutionary backgrounds. Nothing inherently wrong with that—our evolutionary history has granted us a decent ‘innate’ morality. But we who ‘reason’ can do better.)
I was considering writing a long thing about your overconfidence in thinking you could carry out such a plan without any (I am presuming) experience doing that kind of thing.
I didn’t list any plan. This was intentional. I’m not going to give pointers to others who might be seeking them out for reasons I personally haven’t vetted on how to do exactly what this topic entails. That, unlike what some others have criticized about this conversation, actually would be irresponsible.
That being said, the fact that you’re addressing this to the element you are is really demonstrating a further non-sequitor. It doesn’t matter whether or not you believe the scenario plausible: what would your judgment of the rightfulness of carrying out the action yourself int he absence of democratic systems be?
that everyone else on LW seems to hate so y bother?
Why allow your opinions to be swayed by the emotional responses of others?
In my case, I’m currently sitting at −27 on my 30-day karma score. That’s not even the lowest I’ve been in the last thirty days. I’m not really worried about my popularity here. :)
I’m curious, now, as to what nation or state you live in.
I live in Illinois. I am curious as to y you are curious.
Would you kill others (who were themselves also going to die if you did nothing) and allow yourself to die, if it would save people you cared about?
Probably. For instance, I would try to defend my wife/child from imminent physical harm even if it put me in a lot of danger. If that meant trying to kill someone then I would do that but in that case it would be justifiable and I probably wouldn’t go to prison if I survived.
what would your judgment of the rightfulness of carrying out the action yourself int he absence of democratic systems be?
I feel like we are doomed to talk about different things. I think you are talking about “morally right” which I don’t usually think about unless I am trying to convince someone to do something against their own interest. I observe that large democratic governments deliberately kill people all the time without consequence. I also observe that individuals have more trouble doing so. Consequently, I think that individuals trying to kill people is a bad idea. So its not right in the same sense that exercising a 60 delta call 3 mos from expiration is not right.
Why allow your opinions to be swayed by the emotional responses of others?
My opinions are unaffected but my actions might be. If I am telling jokes and everyone is staring at me stone faced I’m likely to stop.
Probably. For instance, I would try to defend my wife/child from imminent physical harm even if it put me in a lot of danger.
How many people you didn’t know would you equate to being “of equal concern” to you as one person you do know when deciding whether or not it’s worth it to risk your own life to save them? Please express this as a ratio—unknowns:knowns -- and then, if you like, knowns:loveds.
Well, I give equivalent utility to “death of all the people I care about” and “end of the species.” Thinking about it harder I feel like “death of all the people I care about” is more like 10-100X worse than my own death. Me going to prison for murder is about as bad as my own death, so its more like .01-.1x end of humanity. Can you imagine that?
I was considering writing a long thing about your overconfidence in thinking you could carry out such a plan without any (I am presuming) experience doing that kind of thing. I was going to explain how badly you are underestimating the complexity of the world around you and overestimating how far you can stray from your own personal experience and still make reasonable predictions. But this is just a silly conversation that everyone else on LW seems to hate so y bother?
I’m curious, now, as to what nation or state you live in.
Well—in this scenario you are “going to die” regardless of the outcome. The only question is whether the people you care about will. Would you kill others (who were themselves also going to die if you did nothing) and allow yourself to die, if it would save people you cared about?
(Also, while it can lead to absurd consequences—Eliezer’s response to the Sims games for example—might I suggest a re-examination of your internal moral consistency? As it stands it seems like you’re allowing many of your moral intuitions to fall in line with evolutionary backgrounds. Nothing inherently wrong with that—our evolutionary history has granted us a decent ‘innate’ morality. But we who ‘reason’ can do better.)
I didn’t list any plan. This was intentional. I’m not going to give pointers to others who might be seeking them out for reasons I personally haven’t vetted on how to do exactly what this topic entails. That, unlike what some others have criticized about this conversation, actually would be irresponsible.
That being said, the fact that you’re addressing this to the element you are is really demonstrating a further non-sequitor. It doesn’t matter whether or not you believe the scenario plausible: what would your judgment of the rightfulness of carrying out the action yourself int he absence of democratic systems be?
Why allow your opinions to be swayed by the emotional responses of others?
In my case, I’m currently sitting at −27 on my 30-day karma score. That’s not even the lowest I’ve been in the last thirty days. I’m not really worried about my popularity here. :)
I live in Illinois. I am curious as to y you are curious.
Probably. For instance, I would try to defend my wife/child from imminent physical harm even if it put me in a lot of danger. If that meant trying to kill someone then I would do that but in that case it would be justifiable and I probably wouldn’t go to prison if I survived.
I feel like we are doomed to talk about different things. I think you are talking about “morally right” which I don’t usually think about unless I am trying to convince someone to do something against their own interest. I observe that large democratic governments deliberately kill people all the time without consequence. I also observe that individuals have more trouble doing so. Consequently, I think that individuals trying to kill people is a bad idea. So its not right in the same sense that exercising a 60 delta call 3 mos from expiration is not right.
My opinions are unaffected but my actions might be. If I am telling jokes and everyone is staring at me stone faced I’m likely to stop.
I imagine if you lived in Norway you would not be of that opinion.
What are Norwegian prisons like?
Yeah, that’s… what I was getting at. (Was this meant as a refutation somehow? I’m confused.)
How many people you didn’t know would you equate to being “of equal concern” to you as one person you do know when deciding whether or not it’s worth it to risk your own life to save them? Please express this as a ratio—unknowns:knowns -- and then, if you like, knowns:loveds.