4 ms·

Creator of "Centre for Effective Altruism"? Longtermism? No thanks. I thought that philosophy has been debunked as a scam after the likes of Sam Bankman and oth

Creator of "Centre for Effective Altruism"? Longtermism? No thanks. I thought that philosophy has been debunked as a scam after the likes of Sam Bankman and others. I mean, living unethically today in order to affect future lives positively is not for me.

NateEag 3y ago
> I mean, living unethically today in order to affect future lives positively is not for me. Though it is an almost-inescapable conclusion of being a utilitarian and significantly smarter than average. If you can defraud millions and put that money to work saving lives and buying many more QALYs than the defrauded would have otherwise had, you have a moral obligation to do so. ...there are many ways to make utilitarianism fall apart, but that one's my current favorite.
- TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
  > If you can defraud millions and put that money to work saving lives and buying many more QALYs than the defrauded would have otherwise had, you have a moral obligation to do so So defrauding millions to accrue QALYs (for whom?) is morally acceptable? > Though it is an almost-inescapable conclusion of being a utilitarian and significantly smarter than average. A modicum of spirituality or religion will quickly quash this. So you have to add atheism to the requirement. Or at least non-spirituality or belief in materialism (I'm not a philosopher so may be using that term incorrectly).
  - NateEag 3y ago
    > So you have to add atheism to the requirement. Yep, you're absolutely right - I forgot to specify that. Most utilitarians don't believe in transcendence, in my experience - not believing in it is usually why they're utilitarian (trying to salvage any argument for behavioral standards other than "I like it when other people do what I like").
  - NateEag 3y ago
    > So defrauding millions to accrue QALYs (for whom?) is morally acceptable? Under most utilitarian theories of ethics, I think it's morally required, if you can show the fraud really does yield a significantly higher QALY count. The best out I can see to argue the fraud is not required is to show that another course of action will yield even more QALYs. Then you'd be obligated you do that instead. That, of course, comes to another fundamental flaws of utilitarianism, namely the belief that you can know what the results of your actions will be with any meaningful completeness or certitude. You can't. Without that it's all just excuses that justify whatever you want to do.
    - TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
      > namely the belief that you can know what the results of your actions will be with any meaningful completeness or certitude. You can't. In parallel threads, a subscriber to this belief mentions probabilities. As long as the probability of an outcome is likely (based on variables and formulas who defines, I don’t know), the means justify the ends. So it’s even worse than what you describe: certitude is not even required, only a likely probability of certitude.
xpe 3y ago
> I thought that philosophy has been debunked as a scam after the likes of Sam Bankman and others. How can a philosophy be "debunked as a scam" by a fraudster being in the news? Or are you talking about something else? One can distort and misuse almost any moral philosophy, such as utilitarianism or any other. History is filled with examples. You may disagree with particular assessments, conclusions, or even the basic tenets of longtermism. Argue against the philosophy if you like. Pick an existential risk, such as nuclear proliferation or artificial intelligence. Study the risks and the benefits. But according to what framework? Please do some legwork about _how_ you plan on evaluating various possible future scenarios. This is is hardly controversial. My recommendation is simple: read MacAskill's book. It is a valuable and different framework than a vast majority of people have really considered. These ideas are not widely percolating yet. You don't need to completely agree with it. If you are thinking person, you probably won't. Now, if you think I'm missing a key perspective or set of facts or reasoning, please let me know. I'll change my assessment based on good evidence.
- TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
  > Or are you talking about something else? I'm talking about immoral or questionable behavior today to justify a possible future. It's like going back in time to kill Hitler's grandfather to prevent Hitler's birth. You have no idea of unintended consequences, and you are intentionally causing harm now for a future completely out of your control (although you deceive yourself into thinking it is in your control by taking action today). > Pick an existential risk, such as nuclear proliferation or artificial intelligence. Study the risks and the benefits. I lived through the Cold War. I don't need this exercise because, the bottom line is, no one knows what existential risk - if any - will happen. The worst of the Cold War never happened, yet many of us thought it would. Likewise, you might choose to focus on AI as your existential risk, go through all the sacrifices and immoral behaviors that longtermism leads you to do in order to mitigate AI, and then a giant meteor collides with Earth. Oops! You chose the wrong existential risk. And meanwhile, you compromised your morals and right behavior in order to mitigate the wrong existential risk. No thanks, not for me. > My recommendation is simple: read MacAskill's book No. I might read about 1000 books in my lifetime (85 reading years * 12 per year). You don't get to choose one of them. But I do appreciate your passion and evangalism.

NateEag 3y ago

> I mean, living unethically today in order to affect future lives positively is not for me. Though it is an almost-inescapable conclusion of being a utilitarian and significantly smarter than average. If you can defraud millions and put that money to work saving lives and buying many more QALYs than the defrauded would have otherwise had, you have a moral obligation to do so. ...there are many ways to make utilitarianism fall apart, but that one's my current favorite.

TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
> If you can defraud millions and put that money to work saving lives and buying many more QALYs than the defrauded would have otherwise had, you have a moral obligation to do so So defrauding millions to accrue QALYs (for whom?) is morally acceptable? > Though it is an almost-inescapable conclusion of being a utilitarian and significantly smarter than average. A modicum of spirituality or religion will quickly quash this. So you have to add atheism to the requirement. Or at least non-spirituality or belief in materialism (I'm not a philosopher so may be using that term incorrectly).
- NateEag 3y ago
  > So you have to add atheism to the requirement. Yep, you're absolutely right - I forgot to specify that. Most utilitarians don't believe in transcendence, in my experience - not believing in it is usually why they're utilitarian (trying to salvage any argument for behavioral standards other than "I like it when other people do what I like").
- NateEag 3y ago
  > So defrauding millions to accrue QALYs (for whom?) is morally acceptable? Under most utilitarian theories of ethics, I think it's morally required, if you can show the fraud really does yield a significantly higher QALY count. The best out I can see to argue the fraud is not required is to show that another course of action will yield even more QALYs. Then you'd be obligated you do that instead. That, of course, comes to another fundamental flaws of utilitarianism, namely the belief that you can know what the results of your actions will be with any meaningful completeness or certitude. You can't. Without that it's all just excuses that justify whatever you want to do.
  - TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
    > namely the belief that you can know what the results of your actions will be with any meaningful completeness or certitude. You can't. In parallel threads, a subscriber to this belief mentions probabilities. As long as the probability of an outcome is likely (based on variables and formulas who defines, I don’t know), the means justify the ends. So it’s even worse than what you describe: certitude is not even required, only a likely probability of certitude.

xpe 3y ago

> I thought that philosophy has been debunked as a scam after the likes of Sam Bankman and others. How can a philosophy be "debunked as a scam" by a fraudster being in the news? Or are you talking about something else? One can distort and misuse almost any moral philosophy, such as utilitarianism or any other. History is filled with examples. You may disagree with particular assessments, conclusions, or even the basic tenets of longtermism. Argue against the philosophy if you like. Pick an existential risk, such as nuclear proliferation or artificial intelligence. Study the risks and the benefits. But according to what framework? Please do some legwork about _how_ you plan on evaluating various possible future scenarios. This is is hardly controversial. My recommendation is simple: read MacAskill's book. It is a valuable and different framework than a vast majority of people have really considered. These ideas are not widely percolating yet. You don't need to completely agree with it. If you are thinking person, you probably won't. Now, if you think I'm missing a key perspective or set of facts or reasoning, please let me know. I'll change my assessment based on good evidence.

TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
> Or are you talking about something else? I'm talking about immoral or questionable behavior today to justify a possible future. It's like going back in time to kill Hitler's grandfather to prevent Hitler's birth. You have no idea of unintended consequences, and you are intentionally causing harm now for a future completely out of your control (although you deceive yourself into thinking it is in your control by taking action today). > Pick an existential risk, such as nuclear proliferation or artificial intelligence. Study the risks and the benefits. I lived through the Cold War. I don't need this exercise because, the bottom line is, no one knows what existential risk - if any - will happen. The worst of the Cold War never happened, yet many of us thought it would. Likewise, you might choose to focus on AI as your existential risk, go through all the sacrifices and immoral behaviors that longtermism leads you to do in order to mitigate AI, and then a giant meteor collides with Earth. Oops! You chose the wrong existential risk. And meanwhile, you compromised your morals and right behavior in order to mitigate the wrong existential risk. No thanks, not for me. > My recommendation is simple: read MacAskill's book No. I might read about 1000 books in my lifetime (85 reading years * 12 per year). You don't get to choose one of them. But I do appreciate your passion and evangalism.