I thought Richard was saying “why would the [thing you do to offset] become worth it once you’ve done [thing you want to offset]? Probably it’s worth doing or not, and probably [thing you want to offset] is bad to do or fine, irrespective of choosing the other”
Indeed. There is no linkage between the two actions in the example before us. Offsetting makes no sense in terms of utility maximisation.
Where, then, does its appeal lie? Here are two defences of offsetting which I have not seen presented, although I expect that the second one may be familiar to followers of religions that practice the rite of confession. Common to both is the idea that offsetting is done first of all for oneself, only secondarily for the world.
The principle of offsetting one’s sins (eating meat, not recycling, flying, existing) can be understood as a practice that simplifies the accounting. For every evil thing that one does, make sure to also do a greater good. One’s account is then sure to always grow, never shrink. This avoids any complex totting up of sin and virtue over longer periods. This is not about maximizing goodness, but establishing a baseline that at least ensures that one will not backslide ever deeper into sin. From such a foundation, one may then build a life of greater virtue.
The discipline of offsetting is good for the soul. The good act undertaken in the wake of an evil one is performed not merely because it is good, but as a penance for the evil, a reminder that one has fallen short. It keeps the evil act before one’s mind, to assist one to do better in future. For a prerequisite for all virtue is noticing what you are about to do and choosing, instead of noticing what you have done, when it is beyond choice.
Each of these has its own failure mode.
Offsetting to compensate for evil can become offsetting to justify evil, as if saving two lives were to give one a licence to end one.
Offsetting as penance can result in penances that accomplish no good, such as saying long series of prayers or self-flagellation.
Offsetting makes no sense in terms of utility maximisation.
Donating less than 100% of your non-essential income also makes no sense in terms of utility maximization, and yet pretty much everybody is guilty of it, what’s up with that?
As it happens, people just aren’t particularly good at this utility maximization thing, so they need various crutches (like the GWWC pledge) to do at least better than most, and offsetting seems like a not-obviously-terrible crutch.
To frame it as a crutch for our irredeemably fallen nature is to accept the all-demandingness narrative of utility maximisation. We must but we can’t, we can’t but we must. I prefer to reject the demand entirely.
I agree, and yet it does seem to me that self-identified EAs are better people, on average. If only there was a way to harness that goodness without skirting Wolf-Insanity quite this close...
I thought Richard was saying “why would the [thing you do to offset] become worth it once you’ve done [thing you want to offset]? Probably it’s worth doing or not, and probably [thing you want to offset] is bad to do or fine, irrespective of choosing the other”
Indeed. There is no linkage between the two actions in the example before us. Offsetting makes no sense in terms of utility maximisation.
Where, then, does its appeal lie? Here are two defences of offsetting which I have not seen presented, although I expect that the second one may be familiar to followers of religions that practice the rite of confession. Common to both is the idea that offsetting is done first of all for oneself, only secondarily for the world.
The principle of offsetting one’s sins (eating meat, not recycling, flying, existing) can be understood as a practice that simplifies the accounting. For every evil thing that one does, make sure to also do a greater good. One’s account is then sure to always grow, never shrink. This avoids any complex totting up of sin and virtue over longer periods. This is not about maximizing goodness, but establishing a baseline that at least ensures that one will not backslide ever deeper into sin. From such a foundation, one may then build a life of greater virtue.
The discipline of offsetting is good for the soul. The good act undertaken in the wake of an evil one is performed not merely because it is good, but as a penance for the evil, a reminder that one has fallen short. It keeps the evil act before one’s mind, to assist one to do better in future. For a prerequisite for all virtue is noticing what you are about to do and choosing, instead of noticing what you have done, when it is beyond choice.
Each of these has its own failure mode.
Offsetting to compensate for evil can become offsetting to justify evil, as if saving two lives were to give one a licence to end one.
Offsetting as penance can result in penances that accomplish no good, such as saying long series of prayers or self-flagellation.
Donating less than 100% of your non-essential income also makes no sense in terms of utility maximization, and yet pretty much everybody is guilty of it, what’s up with that?
As it happens, people just aren’t particularly good at this utility maximization thing, so they need various crutches (like the GWWC pledge) to do at least better than most, and offsetting seems like a not-obviously-terrible crutch.
To frame it as a crutch for our irredeemably fallen nature is to accept the all-demandingness narrative of utility maximisation. We must but we can’t, we can’t but we must. I prefer to reject the demand entirely.
I agree, and yet it does seem to me that self-identified EAs are better people, on average. If only there was a way to harness that goodness without skirting Wolf-Insanity quite this close...