5 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- xpe 3y ago
  > no one knows what existential risk - if any - will happen. We live in a world of uncertainty. We can and must make probabilistic assessments. Don't pretend otherwise by using the classic "appeal to ignorance" fallacy.
- xpe 3y ago
  >> Or are you talking about something else? > I'm talking about immoral or questionable behavior today to justify a possible future. You've outlined a form of deontological ethics, seems to me. You don't subscribe to consequentialism, that fine. But hopefully you recognize there are many moral theories. > It's like going back in time to kill Hitler's grandfather to prevent Hitler's birth. This is a strawman. (A really loaded one at that.)
  - TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
    > You've outlined a form of deontological ethics, I had to look this up. You've given a modern label to an ancient concept sometimes known as the Golden Rule. I'm not sure why. >> It's like going back in time to kill Hitler's grandfather to prevent Hitler's birth. > This is a strawman. (A really loaded one at that.) It's not intended that way, and I'm posing it with honesty. If it's too loaded, then replace Hitler with, I don't know, <insert_bad_guy_here>. It doesn't matter who the bad guy is; the point is: you kill an innocent person (grandfather_of_bad_guy) in order to mold the future in a way that you think will save more, other innocent lives. Correct?
    - xpe 3y ago
      > I had to look this up. Great! Philosophers have explored the ideas of "inherent goodness" versus "goodness because of the effects" for thousands of years. People face these decisions everyday, whether they realize it or not. > You've given a modern label to an ancient concept sometimes known as the Golden Rule. I'm not sure why. First, I didn't discover the idea of deontological ethics (DE). From Brittanica: > In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare. Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions as “Duty for duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.” Second, the Golden Rule is not the same thing as DE. Consider this: > Like most key tenets of ethics, the golden rule shows two major sides: one promoting fairness and individual entitlement, conceived as reciprocity; the other promoting helpfulness and generosity to the end of social welfare. Both the Kantian and Utilitarian traditions focus on only one side, furthering the great distinctions in philosophical ethics—the deontology-teleology and justice-benevolence distinctions. For the general theory project, this one-sidedness is purposeful, a research tool for reductive explanation. > > - https://iep.utm.edu/goldrule/ https://iep.utm.edu/goldrule/ If you want to follow the Golden Rule, you need to think about consequences! Hence probability over future scenarios. You _really_ need to branch out more from Hacker News. Go read some philosophy!

by xpe 3y ago

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.

xpe 3y ago
> no one knows what existential risk - if any - will happen. We live in a world of uncertainty. We can and must make probabilistic assessments. Don't pretend otherwise by using the classic "appeal to ignorance" fallacy.
xpe 3y ago
>> Or are you talking about something else? > I'm talking about immoral or questionable behavior today to justify a possible future. You've outlined a form of deontological ethics, seems to me. You don't subscribe to consequentialism, that fine. But hopefully you recognize there are many moral theories. > It's like going back in time to kill Hitler's grandfather to prevent Hitler's birth. This is a strawman. (A really loaded one at that.)
- TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
  > You've outlined a form of deontological ethics, I had to look this up. You've given a modern label to an ancient concept sometimes known as the Golden Rule. I'm not sure why. >> It's like going back in time to kill Hitler's grandfather to prevent Hitler's birth. > This is a strawman. (A really loaded one at that.) It's not intended that way, and I'm posing it with honesty. If it's too loaded, then replace Hitler with, I don't know, <insert_bad_guy_here>. It doesn't matter who the bad guy is; the point is: you kill an innocent person (grandfather_of_bad_guy) in order to mold the future in a way that you think will save more, other innocent lives. Correct?
  - xpe 3y ago
    > I had to look this up. Great! Philosophers have explored the ideas of "inherent goodness" versus "goodness because of the effects" for thousands of years. People face these decisions everyday, whether they realize it or not. > You've given a modern label to an ancient concept sometimes known as the Golden Rule. I'm not sure why. First, I didn't discover the idea of deontological ethics (DE). From Brittanica: > In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare. Descriptive of such ethics are such expressions as “Duty for duty’s sake,” “Virtue is its own reward,” and “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.” Second, the Golden Rule is not the same thing as DE. Consider this: > Like most key tenets of ethics, the golden rule shows two major sides: one promoting fairness and individual entitlement, conceived as reciprocity; the other promoting helpfulness and generosity to the end of social welfare. Both the Kantian and Utilitarian traditions focus on only one side, furthering the great distinctions in philosophical ethics—the deontology-teleology and justice-benevolence distinctions. For the general theory project, this one-sidedness is purposeful, a research tool for reductive explanation. > > - https://iep.utm.edu/goldrule/ https://iep.utm.edu/goldrule/ If you want to follow the Golden Rule, you need to think about consequences! Hence probability over future scenarios. You _really_ need to branch out more from Hacker News. Go read some philosophy!