4 ms·
> There are a variety of ways in which such a person could be less moral than the pitifully ineffective non-billionaires. I think we might be talking past each
by edanm 4y ago
> There are a variety of ways in which such a person could be less moral than the pitifully ineffective non-billionaires.
I think we might be talking past each other a bit.
I'm saying, given no other information, someone who has given away billions, effectively, as in saved lives, is "morally ahead" of someone who hasn't similarly done so.
Of course they could've done other things that make them morally worse. Of course the way they donated money could be net-negative, if they caused negative things in the world.
But in the absence of other information, if I told you someone had donated a billion dollars to, I don't know, give food to hungry people, do you really think that is a morally neutral act? Like, if someone is a firefighter that has saved hundreds of lives by their heroism, do you think they are literally morally the same as other people who haven't? If that's not what you're talking about, I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Btw, I don't think morality is just an issue of summing up all your good versus bad deeds. I'm not exactly sure how to even define "ahead morally". A firefighter who has saved lives but also abused their kids - how do you even deal with a case like that? I think people are complex, they can do both good and bad, and the good that firefighter did is good, while the bad is bad, period.
I think one thing you might be objecting to is the idea that you can say something like "person X did 100 good deeds, and 99 bad deeds, therefore they are net good" or even "it's worth giving money to a cause that causes 99 bad deeds and 100 good deeds cause it's net positive." And I agree, that's a valid criticism and a wrong way to think about things.
- tptacek 4y agoI'm saying, given no other information, someone who has given away billions, effectively, as in saved lives, is "morally ahead" of someone who hasn't similarly done so. We're not talking past each other. This is false. Your problem is that you're using the concept of incomplete information, rather than that of ceteris paribus. Compare two billionaires, identical in every respect other than that one donated more than the other. The more charitable billionaire is morally superior (or, many reasonable people, myself included, would say so). But that's as far as it goes. And in reality there are never identical billionaires to compare. One billionaire doesn't give enough; the other pledges all their money to GiveWell or EA or AGI, but also keeps hobos locked up in their basement. And, in the main, who gives a shit about the relative value of billionaires? The logic is shot completely to shit as soon as we're trying to compare the marginal sacrifice of a billionaire's giving pledge to the moral decisions people make every day of their life. And yet that's exactly what Scott Aaronson does. I feel embarrassed just typing this stuff out. This is, like, philosophy 101 stuff? The logic I'm arguing against here is on its face one of the cases moral philosophers make against Bentham's naive utilitarianism --- that it leads people to believe stuff like this.
- edanm 4y ago> Your problem is that you're using the concept of incomplete information, rather than that of ceteris paribus. You're right, that's what I meant and I misspoke. > The logic is shot completely to shit as soon as we're trying to compare the marginal sacrifice of a billionaire's giving pledge to the moral decisions people make every day of their life. And yet that's exactly what Scott Aaronson does. Well I think that he was more comparing crypto vs non crypto and saying there's not much difference, but fine. > I feel embarrassed just typing this stuff out. This is, like, philosophy 101 stuff? Sorry to be embarrassing, I guess? :Shrug: > The logic I'm arguing against here is on its face one of the cases moral philosophers make against Bentham's naive utilitarianism --- that it leads people to believe stuff like this. I'm curious; I think utilitarianism is true broadly speaking (though not naive utilitarianism). Do you?
- tptacek 4y agoConsequentialism says that the ends justify the means. They do not.
- naasking 4y agoLast I checked, no one has proven this.
- pvg 4y agoYou gotta check in places other than LessWrong.
- naasking 4y agoI'm actually well versed in virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism and I don't read LessWrong. But if you have a reference where someone proved consequentualism was incoherent or invalid, please provide it, that would be quite earth shattering.
- edanm 4y ago