4 ms·

It’s been a very long time since i read this. The two things that really stuck with me (personal opinion): 1. Utility There are three levels of utility. Thing

It’s been a very long time since i read this. The two things that really stuck with me (personal opinion): 1. Utility There are three levels of utility. Things whose use is only in service of something else are least valued. Things whose use is direct and not in service of something else are of highest value. Things whose use is of both something else and it’s own direct utility are of medium value. As an example a code library is less valuable to the end user than the application it supports. John Stuart Mill’s father founded the philosophy of Utilitarianism based upon Nicomachean Ethics. 2. Directness of Intent Be clear about what you want and why you want it then pursue that objective without distraction. If your primary intent is pleasure then pursue the pleasure first without shame or manipulation. There are books in the set written to subjectively describe such pursuits in terms of base virtues, such as happiness. This is perhaps more about honesty to the self than honesty to others. I suppose if you cannot keep from lying to yourself you will be challenged to communicate honestly at all. It also considers motivation as an economic quantity that can be measured, predicted, and compared when considering the balance of multiple agents acting in concert.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Point 2. reminds me of some old Eliezer's posts, like "Purchase Fuzzies and Utilons Separately"[0]. It argues that if you're clear and honest about your intent, you'll be more efficient. Using an example of helping others, if you seek both the "warm fuzzy feeling" and actual effect on the world, then the best approach would be to get them separately - e.g. buy the feeling cheaply (e.g. do something directly for someone in your community, maybe help an old lady cross the street or something), and then dump the rest of the money into a maximally effective (in terms of $/impact) cause/charity. -- [0] - https://www.lesswrong.com/s/pvim9PZJ6qHRTMqD3/p/3p3CYauiX8oLjmwRF https://www.lesswrong.com/s/pvim9PZJ6qHRTMqD3/p/3p3CYauiX8oL...
- josinalvo 7y ago
  My personal solution is to not buy utilions at all. Fuzzies are good. They are useful. They connect me to people around me, and bring gratitude. Fuzzies are the reason I have a moral feeling at all. And utilions are just a virus, that infects my moral system, trying to highjack it, so that it becomes useless to me. So that I do charity without getting gratitude and potencial help in the future. Purchase "moral usefulness" and "moral useless abstraction" separately, and try to purchase of the latter as little as possible :)
  - josinalvo 7y ago
    The reason I write this is fuzzies, btw. I want to help other people find moral fulfillment, and hopefully some will be grateful and return with some other insight
    - heavenlyblue 7y ago
      Hacker News is not a comfort space though - it is primarily utilitarian (The Economist-liberalist, if you would like) in nature.
  - heavenlyblue 7y ago
    Here's my opposite take on it: The most efficient use of your own superior intellect is to help those who are the most helpless, because by doing the easiest things for you, you can scale those things to a much greater extent. You may think that fuzzies are easy. But they make the greatest different to a much higher amount of people around you.
crazygringo 7y ago
I've studied philosophy a great deal, and I'm terribly confused about your takeaways, because neither have anything to do with Aristotle as far as I know. Aristotle was the founder of what is now termed "virtue ethics", which expressly has nothing to do with utility. In fact, utilitarianism and Bentham/Mill are seen as expressly opposite Aristotle's virtue ethics, not building on it. (Kant's deontology being the third main philosophical alternative.) Similarly, pursuing an objective without distraction could not be less Aristotelian. If you could boil down virtue ethics to a single line, it would be that virtue is about finding the happy medium between excesses. I think you're confusing something else with Nicomachean Ethics. I'm kind of curious what it is now, though.
- austincheney 7y ago
  As far as utility you can find numerous similar interpretations online searching Google for: ethics "exists for its own sake". For a more detailed interpretation see Stanford philosophy text on Aristotelian Ethics: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#HumaGoodFuncArgu https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#HumaGoo... Everything I just searched for referred directly back to Nicomachean Ethics, but it appears this idea exists directly at the top of Aristotle's Metaphysics Book 1. > Similarly, pursuing an objective without distraction could not be less Aristotelian. Perhaps. It has been a long time since I have looked at any of this. If I remember correctly it is more about the clarity of intention/purpose than the substance of the subject for that substance will reveal itself through the pursuit. Aristotle wrote a lot about happiness and even had a word for it: eudaimonia. It did not seem to be a goal but rather the journey and ethics were the guidance that provided both direction and the narrow path.
menexenus 7y ago
For other readers looking at this comment, crazygringo is correct to point out that this view is a canard. If you're interested to learn what Aristotle actually wrote about these topics in the Ethics, see the following: 1) On utility, the comparison to Mill could not be more misleading. What the commenter seems to be referring to is actually Aristotle's idea of self-sufficiency, or autarkeia. For A, this is an essential component of happiness: "The complete good is held to be self-sufficient" (1097b7). To be sure, as A explains, "we do not mean by self-sufficient what suffices for someone by himself, living a solitary life ... since by nature a human being is political" (1097b7-12). Rather, "as for the self-sufficient, we posit it as that which by itself makes life choiceworthy and in need of nothing, and such is what we suppose to be" (1097b15-17). A's point here is that happiness is something that is not itself "for" anything else. Happiness is autonomous, dependent on nothing else. Indeed, it is for happiness that all other activities are directed. Organizing these activities is the province of politics, or what Aristotle calls the "architectonic" art, because it arranges and superintends everything toward the "end of our actions that we wish for on account of itself" (1094a17ff.). Thus, the commenter's remark about the "three levels of utility" is largely misguided, but it comes close-ish to capturing A's thought on the matter. 2) On "intent," Aristotle's treatment of this idea is extremely complex. It first appears at the beginning of Book III, before he begins his treatment of the eleven moral virtues, suggesting its primacy to his thinking. A separates the idea of "intent" into three kinds: "choice" (proairesis), "deliberation" (boule), and "wish" (boulesis). All of these are different kinds of voluntary activity, i.e., intentional activity. Distinguishing between them is essential for understanding the sense in which activities (and therefore virtue, and therefore happiness) is indeed an "intentional" possibility. In other words, is happiness achievable simply through our "intent"? Or is it dependent on chance, determinism, etc.? Are we truly free to become happy? A's answer to this question is complex, but his genius lies in the fact that he divides "intent" into these various forms -- in short, his point is that certain things (e.g., means vs. ends) are "decided" by different faculties of intent. This phenomenology of experience is masked today by our weak word "intent," which remains unfortunately conceptually overloaded and imprecise. Again, I suggest that if anyone wants to know what Aristotle actually thought about these topics, they turn to the text itself.
bladegash 7y ago
This is kind of nit picky, but isn’t Jeremy Bentham typically credited as the founder of Utilitarianism? Not criticizing, genuinely curious as James Mills was barely mentioned when I took philosophy coursework.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Yes. I wanted to say that Bentham was JSM's godfather, though I'm finding no specific mention of this. He was, at the very least, a very close friend of JSM's father James Mill and an extraordinarily strong influence on John Stuart (middle name itself having an interesting story) in education and development. JSM himself was godfather to the godless Bertrand Russell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill https://www.winterwatch.net/2020/03/jeremy-bentham-british-elitist-agent-and-weird-pseudo-intellectual-godfather-of-utilitarianism/ https://www.winterwatch.net/2020/03/jeremy-bentham-british-e... https://www.thoughtco.com/john-stuart-mill-male-feminist-3530510 https://www.thoughtco.com/john-stuart-mill-male-feminist-353...
SkyBelow 7y ago
So for point 1, what counts as being of use in service of something else and of use directly? Take a game and an helper for that game. The helper is clearly of use in service to the game. But is the game of use directly, or is it in service to the enjoyment of the player? The enjoyment of the player would be the only thing that is done for itself, and even that gets a little odd when you begin to strip back the neurology of what the enjoyment is. So I see two ways to take this. First, a slight clarification to say that 'something' that a thing may be in use to is limited in a way to not include desires and pursuits. Second, that the only thing that has the purest usefulness are desire and pursuits we seek only to fulfill them and not for other reasons (if we ignore why our brain wants us to do such). Both seem odd but not repulsive takes.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Point 2. reminds me of some old Eliezer's posts, like "Purchase Fuzzies and Utilons Separately"[0]. It argues that if you're clear and honest about your intent, you'll be more efficient. Using an example of helping others, if you seek both the "warm fuzzy feeling" and actual effect on the world, then the best approach would be to get them separately - e.g. buy the feeling cheaply (e.g. do something directly for someone in your community, maybe help an old lady cross the street or something), and then dump the rest of the money into a maximally effective (in terms of $/impact) cause/charity. -- [0] - https://www.lesswrong.com/s/pvim9PZJ6qHRTMqD3/p/3p3CYauiX8oLjmwRF https://www.lesswrong.com/s/pvim9PZJ6qHRTMqD3/p/3p3CYauiX8oL...

josinalvo 7y ago
My personal solution is to not buy utilions at all. Fuzzies are good. They are useful. They connect me to people around me, and bring gratitude. Fuzzies are the reason I have a moral feeling at all. And utilions are just a virus, that infects my moral system, trying to highjack it, so that it becomes useless to me. So that I do charity without getting gratitude and potencial help in the future. Purchase "moral usefulness" and "moral useless abstraction" separately, and try to purchase of the latter as little as possible :)
- josinalvo 7y ago
  The reason I write this is fuzzies, btw. I want to help other people find moral fulfillment, and hopefully some will be grateful and return with some other insight
  - heavenlyblue 7y ago
    Hacker News is not a comfort space though - it is primarily utilitarian (The Economist-liberalist, if you would like) in nature.
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  Here's my opposite take on it: The most efficient use of your own superior intellect is to help those who are the most helpless, because by doing the easiest things for you, you can scale those things to a much greater extent. You may think that fuzzies are easy. But they make the greatest different to a much higher amount of people around you.

crazygringo 7y ago

I've studied philosophy a great deal, and I'm terribly confused about your takeaways, because neither have anything to do with Aristotle as far as I know. Aristotle was the founder of what is now termed "virtue ethics", which expressly has nothing to do with utility. In fact, utilitarianism and Bentham/Mill are seen as expressly opposite Aristotle's virtue ethics, not building on it. (Kant's deontology being the third main philosophical alternative.) Similarly, pursuing an objective without distraction could not be less Aristotelian. If you could boil down virtue ethics to a single line, it would be that virtue is about finding the happy medium between excesses. I think you're confusing something else with Nicomachean Ethics. I'm kind of curious what it is now, though.

austincheney 7y ago
As far as utility you can find numerous similar interpretations online searching Google for: ethics "exists for its own sake". For a more detailed interpretation see Stanford philosophy text on Aristotelian Ethics: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#HumaGoodFuncArgu https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#HumaGoo... Everything I just searched for referred directly back to Nicomachean Ethics, but it appears this idea exists directly at the top of Aristotle's Metaphysics Book 1. > Similarly, pursuing an objective without distraction could not be less Aristotelian. Perhaps. It has been a long time since I have looked at any of this. If I remember correctly it is more about the clarity of intention/purpose than the substance of the subject for that substance will reveal itself through the pursuit. Aristotle wrote a lot about happiness and even had a word for it: eudaimonia. It did not seem to be a goal but rather the journey and ethics were the guidance that provided both direction and the narrow path.

menexenus 7y ago

For other readers looking at this comment, crazygringo is correct to point out that this view is a canard. If you're interested to learn what Aristotle actually wrote about these topics in the Ethics, see the following: 1) On utility, the comparison to Mill could not be more misleading. What the commenter seems to be referring to is actually Aristotle's idea of self-sufficiency, or autarkeia. For A, this is an essential component of happiness: "The complete good is held to be self-sufficient" (1097b7). To be sure, as A explains, "we do not mean by self-sufficient what suffices for someone by himself, living a solitary life ... since by nature a human being is political" (1097b7-12). Rather, "as for the self-sufficient, we posit it as that which by itself makes life choiceworthy and in need of nothing, and such is what we suppose to be" (1097b15-17). A's point here is that happiness is something that is not itself "for" anything else. Happiness is autonomous, dependent on nothing else. Indeed, it is for happiness that all other activities are directed. Organizing these activities is the province of politics, or what Aristotle calls the "architectonic" art, because it arranges and superintends everything toward the "end of our actions that we wish for on account of itself" (1094a17ff.). Thus, the commenter's remark about the "three levels of utility" is largely misguided, but it comes close-ish to capturing A's thought on the matter. 2) On "intent," Aristotle's treatment of this idea is extremely complex. It first appears at the beginning of Book III, before he begins his treatment of the eleven moral virtues, suggesting its primacy to his thinking. A separates the idea of "intent" into three kinds: "choice" (proairesis), "deliberation" (boule), and "wish" (boulesis). All of these are different kinds of voluntary activity, i.e., intentional activity. Distinguishing between them is essential for understanding the sense in which activities (and therefore virtue, and therefore happiness) is indeed an "intentional" possibility. In other words, is happiness achievable simply through our "intent"? Or is it dependent on chance, determinism, etc.? Are we truly free to become happy? A's answer to this question is complex, but his genius lies in the fact that he divides "intent" into these various forms -- in short, his point is that certain things (e.g., means vs. ends) are "decided" by different faculties of intent. This phenomenology of experience is masked today by our weak word "intent," which remains unfortunately conceptually overloaded and imprecise. Again, I suggest that if anyone wants to know what Aristotle actually thought about these topics, they turn to the text itself.

bladegash 7y ago

This is kind of nit picky, but isn’t Jeremy Bentham typically credited as the founder of Utilitarianism? Not criticizing, genuinely curious as James Mills was barely mentioned when I took philosophy coursework.

dredmorbius 7y ago
Yes. I wanted to say that Bentham was JSM's godfather, though I'm finding no specific mention of this. He was, at the very least, a very close friend of JSM's father James Mill and an extraordinarily strong influence on John Stuart (middle name itself having an interesting story) in education and development. JSM himself was godfather to the godless Bertrand Russell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill https://www.winterwatch.net/2020/03/jeremy-bentham-british-elitist-agent-and-weird-pseudo-intellectual-godfather-of-utilitarianism/ https://www.winterwatch.net/2020/03/jeremy-bentham-british-e... https://www.thoughtco.com/john-stuart-mill-male-feminist-3530510 https://www.thoughtco.com/john-stuart-mill-male-feminist-353...

SkyBelow 7y ago

So for point 1, what counts as being of use in service of something else and of use directly? Take a game and an helper for that game. The helper is clearly of use in service to the game. But is the game of use directly, or is it in service to the enjoyment of the player? The enjoyment of the player would be the only thing that is done for itself, and even that gets a little odd when you begin to strip back the neurology of what the enjoyment is. So I see two ways to take this. First, a slight clarification to say that 'something' that a thing may be in use to is limited in a way to not include desires and pursuits. Second, that the only thing that has the purest usefulness are desire and pursuits we seek only to fulfill them and not for other reasons (if we ignore why our brain wants us to do such). Both seem odd but not repulsive takes.