3 ms·

Sure, but then the argument is "SBF was bad actually". I agree with this take - this is going to lead to bad outcomes. But note that saying so already embraces

Sure, but then the argument is "SBF was bad actually". I agree with this take - this is going to lead to bad outcomes. But note that saying so already embraces a consequentialist framework. This is a common argument for "rules utilitarianism", which is that given human psychology, getting humans to pursue (particular) virtues leads to better outcomes in the real world than getting humans to engage in first-order outcome maximization. A true virtue-ethics take would be that SBF was inherently ennobled by good behavior or blemished by bad behavior, and the outcomes would have no relevance to this consideration. That's why I said virtue ethics is dead - approximately nobody argues like that today.

notahacker 4y ago
Well yes, nobody in this subthread is arguing that outcomes have no relevance. We just object to Aaronson's rather extreme position that the correct measure of SBF's goodness is the single dimension of the absolute amounts he donated to notionally philanthropic causes (which seems like the reductio ad absurdum version of EA utilitarianism). And yes, I'm also unconvinced of the argument that behaviour and intent plays no role in ethics. It may be a good in terms of outcome that a sociopathic hereditary billionaire gives away 1%< of his fortune purely for reputation laundering purposes whilst minimising his interactions with other humans he declines to fulfil his rape and torture fantasies on purely out of rational self-interest, but I don't believe that would make him a "good person" by any reasonable ethical standard, never mind a "better person than all of us". At some point intent, relative sacrifice and what would other people have done in the same position become relevant to casting judgement on his benevolence, never mind his other vices. And certainly the courts will consider intent and not just the brute fact that SBF lost a lot of people's money when deciding whether to prosecute him, convictions and sentencing; I imagine most of his defence will be structured around that...
- FeepingCreature 4y ago
  I don't fully agree with Aaronson's take, I just think it's underappreciated. I am a sorta-rules utilitarian; in contested questions, I think the moral obligation is to behave in a fashion so that the standards by which we act, if universalized, maximize beneficial outcomes. And I think there is an argument to be made that getting rich people to donate is a thing that a moral system that tries to lead to good outcomes, should focus attention on. Like it or not, we have set up our society so that economic decisionmaking power is to a large part concentrated in the hands of a small fraction of the population. This population is a moral fulcrum; the things they decide to do have a significant effect on actual events, in some ways even outstripping governments (which generally hold obligations on par with their power). I think an effective morality needs to acknowledge this and make special dispensation for these people if they decide to bend their power towards creating good outcomes, whether or not one approves of their existence in the abstract. Assume you are trying to invent a morality to sell to the one percent. The pass-or-fail condition is that this morality must absolve their sins. It seems to me that the default option here is laissez-faire libertarianism, which has cultural bias against doing work to improve the worse off; in my view, being able to make inroads in this moral market is a significant victory for EA and good outcomes in general.
  - endominus 4y ago
    >I am a sorta-rules utilitarian; in contested questions, I think the moral obligation is to behave in a fashion so that the standards by which we act, if universalized, maximize beneficial outcomes. If you'll forgive the glibness, isn't that just deontology with extra steps? Sorry, it's just been on my mind since I learned (from Resident Contrarian article[0]) that many rule-utilitarianism is a functional reskin of disfavored deontological thinking. [0]: https://www.residentcontrarian.com/p/the-weird-world-of-the-kind-of-deontologist https://www.residentcontrarian.com/p/the-weird-world-of-the-...
    - FeepingCreature 4y ago
      Every moral framework is every other moral framework with extra steps. They're all "morally Turing complete". However, which one you pick may make certain moral views significantly easier or harder to express. It's less that I think rule utilitarianism is morally compelling as a way of deciding what is good, as that I think rule utilitarianism captures some of my moral intuitions particularly well, so I use it to model (some of) the reasoning that my brain goes through when evaluating goodness. In other words, it's descriptive, not prescriptive.

notahacker 4y ago

Well yes, nobody in this subthread is arguing that outcomes have no relevance. We just object to Aaronson's rather extreme position that the correct measure of SBF's goodness is the single dimension of the absolute amounts he donated to notionally philanthropic causes (which seems like the reductio ad absurdum version of EA utilitarianism). And yes, I'm also unconvinced of the argument that behaviour and intent plays no role in ethics. It may be a good in terms of outcome that a sociopathic hereditary billionaire gives away 1%< of his fortune purely for reputation laundering purposes whilst minimising his interactions with other humans he declines to fulfil his rape and torture fantasies on purely out of rational self-interest, but I don't believe that would make him a "good person" by any reasonable ethical standard, never mind a "better person than all of us". At some point intent, relative sacrifice and what would other people have done in the same position become relevant to casting judgement on his benevolence, never mind his other vices. And certainly the courts will consider intent and not just the brute fact that SBF lost a lot of people's money when deciding whether to prosecute him, convictions and sentencing; I imagine most of his defence will be structured around that...

FeepingCreature 4y ago
I don't fully agree with Aaronson's take, I just think it's underappreciated. I am a sorta-rules utilitarian; in contested questions, I think the moral obligation is to behave in a fashion so that the standards by which we act, if universalized, maximize beneficial outcomes. And I think there is an argument to be made that getting rich people to donate is a thing that a moral system that tries to lead to good outcomes, should focus attention on. Like it or not, we have set up our society so that economic decisionmaking power is to a large part concentrated in the hands of a small fraction of the population. This population is a moral fulcrum; the things they decide to do have a significant effect on actual events, in some ways even outstripping governments (which generally hold obligations on par with their power). I think an effective morality needs to acknowledge this and make special dispensation for these people if they decide to bend their power towards creating good outcomes, whether or not one approves of their existence in the abstract. Assume you are trying to invent a morality to sell to the one percent. The pass-or-fail condition is that this morality must absolve their sins. It seems to me that the default option here is laissez-faire libertarianism, which has cultural bias against doing work to improve the worse off; in my view, being able to make inroads in this moral market is a significant victory for EA and good outcomes in general.
- endominus 4y ago
  >I am a sorta-rules utilitarian; in contested questions, I think the moral obligation is to behave in a fashion so that the standards by which we act, if universalized, maximize beneficial outcomes. If you'll forgive the glibness, isn't that just deontology with extra steps? Sorry, it's just been on my mind since I learned (from Resident Contrarian article[0]) that many rule-utilitarianism is a functional reskin of disfavored deontological thinking. [0]: https://www.residentcontrarian.com/p/the-weird-world-of-the-kind-of-deontologist https://www.residentcontrarian.com/p/the-weird-world-of-the-...
  - FeepingCreature 4y ago
    Every moral framework is every other moral framework with extra steps. They're all "morally Turing complete". However, which one you pick may make certain moral views significantly easier or harder to express. It's less that I think rule utilitarianism is morally compelling as a way of deciding what is good, as that I think rule utilitarianism captures some of my moral intuitions particularly well, so I use it to model (some of) the reasoning that my brain goes through when evaluating goodness. In other words, it's descriptive, not prescriptive.