6 ms·

I think a more useful definition would be about instruments, not ends. It is up to each individual to define their utility function. If they want that utility f

by darawk 4y ago

I think a more useful definition would be about instruments, not ends. It is up to each individual to define their utility function. If they want that utility function to be aesthetic or religious, that's up to them. EA as a philosophy doesn't determine what your utility function ought to be. What it does say is: conditional on selecting a utility function, you should attempt to use the tools of rationality, statistics, etc to maximize it efficiently. The fact that particular groups of EAs have sufficiently similar utility functions to pool resources in determining how to maximize them does not mean that all EAs must agree on those utility functions. If your utility function says the greatest good is converting non-believers to flat earthism, then EA says you ought to study how best to achieve that before devoting lots of resources blindly. It doesn't tell you that flat earthism is bad.

Psyonic 4y ago
So Thanos was an effective altruist?
- darawk 4y ago
  I don't know enough about the Marvel (or whichever) universe to answer that question.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  Movie Thanos' plan is to kill half the universe to solve the resource problem. This seems obviously stupid to me, since the world population can double in about no time at all, and will create a huge incentive for growth. Imagine half of the housing in the world being empty. Great time to start a new family! Comic book Thanos wants to kill half the universe to woo Death, as in the female deity representing death. No altruism in that as far as I can tell, just the world's most brutal romantic gesture.
astrange 4y ago
I think I've seen Mr. ACX say that this is wrong and the right way to do it is to be utilitarian, but just don't try very hard to calculate it ie don't be rational or maximize it. This is probably correct; if you maximize anything hard enough you'll end up in a logic trap, turn the world into paperclips, and get eaten by a utility monster[0]. That's because rationality doesn't actually work in the real world[1]. Of course, "just don't try hard" isn't going to work for everyone. I think if you do try to rationalize "utilitarianism but not calculating too hard", you end up at virtue ethics, but ironically I haven't thought about that hard enough to say. [0] ie you can increase happiness temporarily by giving everyone drugs, they'll just die after [1] https://metarationality.com https://metarationality.com, also see Taleb on why you shouldn't always "maximize"
- mst 4y ago
  A reasonable short (so necessarily lossy) version of what I've ended up believing is: - policy decisions should be made on a consequentialist basis (which can involve utiliarianism like calculations but is to me most about considering second and third order consequences, with attempts at calculation as merely one mechanism through which to do so) - personal decisions should be made on a virtue ethics basis I'm not going to claim this as a Right Answer but this model has proven to be the least wrong / most useful one I've encountered in practice, at least for me.
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    Why what way, and what do you understand by "virtue ethics"? It doesn't seem to be a very common approach, so I'm not very familiar with it.
    - pmyteh 4y ago
      The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a characteristically good (and easy to follow) overview: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
      - dale_glass 4y ago
        That's all well and good, but I'm more interested in the practical example of how this particular person approaches it. The Stanford Encyclopedia gives several forms for instance. It seems probable any given person will pick one form to subscribe to, and then have some particular interpretation of what that means to them. That's what I'm curious about.
    - mst 4y ago
      I ... ok, so the late reply is because I know inside my head what I mean, but expressing it is hard (sorry about that, hopefully you'll see this anyway.) Virtue ethics is ... about trying to reach for the Good. People of faith regularly have a similar outlook except perhaps without one of the 'o's. Caring about people in general, trying to be trustworthy, trying to be honourable, trying to look after your friends. I guess you could say it's characterised by trying to come away from a situation feeling like you've done the morally virtuous thing (I am very aware of the tautology there) rather than necessarily the utility maximising thing. It's very fuzzy, but also very human, and I'm conscious that I've not given you a solid meta-ethical grounding for it ... but then again, I'm not convinced there -is- one, and yet it seems to work for me. Sorry for the massive vagueness, but realistically it cashes out to "try to do the right thing", which is necessarily vague and dependent on your own perception of what is morally correct ... which is why it's a terrible way to make policy (IMO) but works well on an individual basis, at least for me.

by darawk 4y ago

Psyonic 4y ago

So Thanos was an effective altruist?

darawk 4y ago
I don't know enough about the Marvel (or whichever) universe to answer that question.
dale_glass 4y ago
Movie Thanos' plan is to kill half the universe to solve the resource problem. This seems obviously stupid to me, since the world population can double in about no time at all, and will create a huge incentive for growth. Imagine half of the housing in the world being empty. Great time to start a new family! Comic book Thanos wants to kill half the universe to woo Death, as in the female deity representing death. No altruism in that as far as I can tell, just the world's most brutal romantic gesture.

astrange 4y ago

I think I've seen Mr. ACX say that this is wrong and the right way to do it is to be utilitarian, but just don't try very hard to calculate it ie don't be rational or maximize it. This is probably correct; if you maximize anything hard enough you'll end up in a logic trap, turn the world into paperclips, and get eaten by a utility monster[0]. That's because rationality doesn't actually work in the real world[1]. Of course, "just don't try hard" isn't going to work for everyone. I think if you do try to rationalize "utilitarianism but not calculating too hard", you end up at virtue ethics, but ironically I haven't thought about that hard enough to say. [0] ie you can increase happiness temporarily by giving everyone drugs, they'll just die after [1] https://metarationality.com https://metarationality.com, also see Taleb on why you shouldn't always "maximize"

mst 4y ago
A reasonable short (so necessarily lossy) version of what I've ended up believing is: - policy decisions should be made on a consequentialist basis (which can involve utiliarianism like calculations but is to me most about considering second and third order consequences, with attempts at calculation as merely one mechanism through which to do so) - personal decisions should be made on a virtue ethics basis I'm not going to claim this as a Right Answer but this model has proven to be the least wrong / most useful one I've encountered in practice, at least for me.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  Why what way, and what do you understand by "virtue ethics"? It doesn't seem to be a very common approach, so I'm not very familiar with it.
  - pmyteh 4y ago
    The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a characteristically good (and easy to follow) overview: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
    - dale_glass 4y ago
      That's all well and good, but I'm more interested in the practical example of how this particular person approaches it. The Stanford Encyclopedia gives several forms for instance. It seems probable any given person will pick one form to subscribe to, and then have some particular interpretation of what that means to them. That's what I'm curious about.
  - mst 4y ago
    I ... ok, so the late reply is because I know inside my head what I mean, but expressing it is hard (sorry about that, hopefully you'll see this anyway.) Virtue ethics is ... about trying to reach for the Good. People of faith regularly have a similar outlook except perhaps without one of the 'o's. Caring about people in general, trying to be trustworthy, trying to be honourable, trying to look after your friends. I guess you could say it's characterised by trying to come away from a situation feeling like you've done the morally virtuous thing (I am very aware of the tautology there) rather than necessarily the utility maximising thing. It's very fuzzy, but also very human, and I'm conscious that I've not given you a solid meta-ethical grounding for it ... but then again, I'm not convinced there -is- one, and yet it seems to work for me. Sorry for the massive vagueness, but realistically it cashes out to "try to do the right thing", which is necessarily vague and dependent on your own perception of what is morally correct ... which is why it's a terrible way to make policy (IMO) but works well on an individual basis, at least for me.