4 ms·

Sorry, it is not a "fine" concept. It is just utilitarianism with modern marketing and pure utilitarianism has problems. See one example below where utilitari

Sorry, it is not a "fine" concept. It is just utilitarianism with modern marketing and pure utilitarianism has problems. See one example below where utilitarianism's suggestion goes against what almost everyone considers ethical: You can take 10 healthy organs from one person without any social connections and use the organs to save 10 terminal patients who would otherwise die. EA effectively sanctions robbing a million people to help a million people + 1

itsdrewmiller 4y ago
EA doesn't do that - it's a much smaller concept than utilitarianism. (Which also wouldn't always support that conclusion.)
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  But it has very noticeably begun falling into the same traps long discovered and recognized by utilitarianism. EA now has a significant contingent that is most focused on very unlikely far future outcomes because they would be incredibly bad for an unimaginably vast number of people if they did occur eg unbounded utility. That's pascal's mugging! The movement is based on the same ideas and values and it's running into the same problems. These similarities don't inherently discredit the movement, but not having a clear awareness of these faults in their framework and a plan for avoiding them is very worrying.
  - nl 4y ago
    > EA now has a significant contingent that is most focused on very unlikely far future outcomes because they would be incredibly bad for an unimaginably vast number of people if they did occur eg unbounded utility. That's pascal's mugging! Indeed! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging (Although the term itself comes from the EA community)
  - _yb2s 4y ago
    I am very confused about why the rationalists, who first identified the concept of pascal's mugging seem to have a huge number of initiatives which seem to be examples of falling directly into the pascal's mugging trap. With all of these examples, and pascal's mugging itself, there is an obvious error: there should be a practical upper bound on the adverse outcome you're concerned about, at which all higher values are effectively the same to you.
    - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
      > I am very confused about why the rationalists, who first identified the concept of pascal's mugging seem to have a huge number of initiatives which seem to be examples of falling directly into the pascal's mugging trap. The original rationalists were true rationalist. And the recent ones? I am not so sure.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  > Which also wouldn't always support that conclusion This is a well known issue: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/ https://blog.apaonline.org/2021/03/29/is-effective-altruism-inherently-utilitarian/ https://blog.apaonline.org/2021/03/29/is-effective-altruism-... > As such, Effective Altruism is inherently Utilitarian in character, even if the views are themselves distinct. Criticisms of Effective Altruism on the basis of critiques to Utilitarianism are not only expected, but fair.
concordDance 4y ago
That example is a bad one. There are many serious risks in trying to do that in practice, which is why our intuitions are against it. E.g. you might be found out and people might mistrust doctors, you might be wrong about the person having to connections, those patients might not live long anyway, etc etc > EA effectively sanctions robbing a million people to help a million people + 1 Yes, EA people often think taxes are a good idea. This is not a rare thing.
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  > That example is a bad one. No, just saying that it is a bad example doesn't make it. I wish EA folks looked at the literature that discusses this very example. > There are many serious risks in trying to do that in practice, which is why our intuitions are against it. E.g. you might be found out and people might mistrust doctors, you might be wrong about the person having to connections, those patients might not live long anyway, etc etc Yes, that has been discussed thousands of times in the literature. To answer, you can always have the person confirm they are ok with it (e.g. Switzerland allows physician-assisted suicide in some case).
  - concordDance 4y ago
    > Yes, that has been discussed thousands of times in the literature. Yes, and that's why the strawman is bad. EA folks don't in practice follow or advocate for any form of ethical system that leads to doctors killing people for their organs.
    - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
      > Yes, and that's why the strawman is bad. No, thats why it is good. It is discussed thousands of times *because* none of the solutions are satisfactory. > EA folks don't in practice follow or advocate for any form of ethical system that leads to doctors killing people for their organs. But the axioms they evangelize imply that. And this is essentially what Bankman has done financially.

itsdrewmiller 4y ago

EA doesn't do that - it's a much smaller concept than utilitarianism. (Which also wouldn't always support that conclusion.)

giraffe_lady 4y ago
But it has very noticeably begun falling into the same traps long discovered and recognized by utilitarianism. EA now has a significant contingent that is most focused on very unlikely far future outcomes because they would be incredibly bad for an unimaginably vast number of people if they did occur eg unbounded utility. That's pascal's mugging! The movement is based on the same ideas and values and it's running into the same problems. These similarities don't inherently discredit the movement, but not having a clear awareness of these faults in their framework and a plan for avoiding them is very worrying.
- nl 4y ago
  > EA now has a significant contingent that is most focused on very unlikely far future outcomes because they would be incredibly bad for an unimaginably vast number of people if they did occur eg unbounded utility. That's pascal's mugging! Indeed! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging (Although the term itself comes from the EA community)
- _yb2s 4y ago
  I am very confused about why the rationalists, who first identified the concept of pascal's mugging seem to have a huge number of initiatives which seem to be examples of falling directly into the pascal's mugging trap. With all of these examples, and pascal's mugging itself, there is an obvious error: there should be a practical upper bound on the adverse outcome you're concerned about, at which all higher values are effectively the same to you.
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    > I am very confused about why the rationalists, who first identified the concept of pascal's mugging seem to have a huge number of initiatives which seem to be examples of falling directly into the pascal's mugging trap. The original rationalists were true rationalist. And the recent ones? I am not so sure.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cscurmudgeon 4y ago
> Which also wouldn't always support that conclusion This is a well known issue: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/ https://blog.apaonline.org/2021/03/29/is-effective-altruism-inherently-utilitarian/ https://blog.apaonline.org/2021/03/29/is-effective-altruism-... > As such, Effective Altruism is inherently Utilitarian in character, even if the views are themselves distinct. Criticisms of Effective Altruism on the basis of critiques to Utilitarianism are not only expected, but fair.

concordDance 4y ago

That example is a bad one. There are many serious risks in trying to do that in practice, which is why our intuitions are against it. E.g. you might be found out and people might mistrust doctors, you might be wrong about the person having to connections, those patients might not live long anyway, etc etc > EA effectively sanctions robbing a million people to help a million people + 1 Yes, EA people often think taxes are a good idea. This is not a rare thing.

cscurmudgeon 4y ago
> That example is a bad one. No, just saying that it is a bad example doesn't make it. I wish EA folks looked at the literature that discusses this very example. > There are many serious risks in trying to do that in practice, which is why our intuitions are against it. E.g. you might be found out and people might mistrust doctors, you might be wrong about the person having to connections, those patients might not live long anyway, etc etc Yes, that has been discussed thousands of times in the literature. To answer, you can always have the person confirm they are ok with it (e.g. Switzerland allows physician-assisted suicide in some case).
- concordDance 4y ago
  > Yes, that has been discussed thousands of times in the literature. Yes, and that's why the strawman is bad. EA folks don't in practice follow or advocate for any form of ethical system that leads to doctors killing people for their organs.
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    > Yes, and that's why the strawman is bad. No, thats why it is good. It is discussed thousands of times *because* none of the solutions are satisfactory. > EA folks don't in practice follow or advocate for any form of ethical system that leads to doctors killing people for their organs. But the axioms they evangelize imply that. And this is essentially what Bankman has done financially.