2 ms·

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 ou

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.

2 ms·

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 ou

by concordDance 4y ago

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.