3 ms·

Yes, nobody (including utilitarians!) thinks you're actually able to calculate the exact number of utilons without omniscience. There aren't probes in your brai

by YellOh 3y ago

Yes, nobody (including utilitarians!) thinks you're actually able to calculate the exact number of utilons without omniscience. There aren't probes in your brain to determine what fraction of a utilon you get from looking at a cute puppy. Lots of utilitarians try to determine aggregate effects on utility given the data we have available, and then use that as input to make best-guess shorthand rules for maximizing utility. And generally, efficient charities > inefficient charities, and donating [from well-employed people] > fuzzy-maximizing hours. YMMV and it doesn't apply to every possible lawyer or situation, only the majority of them. (Critical thinking still required.) Hence why so many utilitarians use contractualism/virtue ethics/etc for day-to-day decisions; utility is the "reason" that informs big-picture decisions, but it's too impractical to start crunching numbers at every possible crossroads. See also: the many, many warnings against "naive act utilitarianism" even from within big utilitarian groups (LW, EA, 80k, etc.). Pretty sure we've veered off from the actual problem the original post is getting at, but if you want to talk more about the practicalities of utilitarianism, I'd be very happy to (or to link to SEP/LW/EA essays that dig more into this issue). :-) One great book that addresses this issue specifically is Against Empathy, on the limits of reasoning by what "feels" best (while still respecting that it's impossible to perfectly calculate utility irl); would highly recommend if you're interested.

vorpalhex 3y ago
I read quite a bit of LW/ACX/etc though by no means do I keep up on all of it. I'll add Against Empathy to my reading list (though working on House of Leaves at the moment, so give me a few months). One of my general criticisms of strict EA folks (and EA is a wide spectrum from common sense to very strict interpretations) is that they get stuck in a loop of describing the internal motivations of others ("People volunteer for the fuzzies!") and then use their own description of that black box to dismiss it ("Fuzzies aren't worth much!"). That is a fundamentally flawed logic. More than the obvious flaw there is a hidden one: the assumption that because the value of a thing is poorly described (the fuzzies) that it has little value or only soft value. Humans are feeling machines who sometimes engage in rationality - doing rationality more or better does not change that equation. Those who can't understand that are doomed to not be successful.

by YellOh 3y ago

vorpalhex 3y ago

I read quite a bit of LW/ACX/etc though by no means do I keep up on all of it. I'll add Against Empathy to my reading list (though working on House of Leaves at the moment, so give me a few months). One of my general criticisms of strict EA folks (and EA is a wide spectrum from common sense to very strict interpretations) is that they get stuck in a loop of describing the internal motivations of others ("People volunteer for the fuzzies!") and then use their own description of that black box to dismiss it ("Fuzzies aren't worth much!"). That is a fundamentally flawed logic. More than the obvious flaw there is a hidden one: the assumption that because the value of a thing is poorly described (the fuzzies) that it has little value or only soft value. Humans are feeling machines who sometimes engage in rationality - doing rationality more or better does not change that equation. Those who can't understand that are doomed to not be successful.