6 ms·

He has some great essays and research pieces and has fostered a generally nice community of people who grew out of LessWrong. There aren't many places online to

He has some great essays and research pieces and has fostered a generally nice community of people who grew out of LessWrong. There aren't many places online to talk about those things in a certain way without it devolving rapidly.

throwanem 1y ago
Strangely, a popular formulation of utilitarian ethics attracts utilitarian ethicists, some of whom were eugenicists and the like already by inclination, the rest merely having become so under the suasion of this fringe theory's false axioms. When your scheme of rules for how human societies should run does nothing to exclude or even discourage the worst atrocities of human history - when that scheme is fairly evaluable on its own terms as declaring those atrocities insufficient! - you've already made a catastrophically terrible mistake. To advocate it thereafter through persuasion rhetorical and otherwise is contemptible, but unsurprising.
- klipt 1y ago
  Anything that causes huge suffering, like forcing eugenics on people, is obviously not utilitarian because suffering has negative utility. Unless you mean things like parents choosing to screen for Down syndrome, which is not what most people call "eugenics" since it's completely voluntary.
  - throwanem 1y ago
    That's just, like, your utility function, maaaaaaan. I joke, but that actually is the problem. I mean, look at you! Even trying to disclaim eugenics you can't manage not to espouse it, just in the "positive" or "voluntary" or "new eugenics" or "liberal eugenics" variety that bothers people less than all the others. I mean, I get why a programmable system of ethics appeals to programmers, just as a mathematical one to mathematicians, and for like cause in both cases. But you are required to acknowledge reality has the permanent right of veto, not merely pay lip service to the concept of it possibly for the moment holding that privilege.
    - klipt 1y ago
      So you're saying it should be illegal to test for Down syndrome in utero? Because that's a common practice in most developed countries. And it hasn't led to Nazi Germany in those countries.
      - throwanem 1y ago
        I'm saying you should own yourself a eugenicist and at least be honest about that, rather than strive to advance a heterodox and unappealing, actually rather amoral and inhuman, ideology through instrumental deceit. You certainly should not do so on the backs of parents facing what I understand can be one of a lifetime's more difficult decisions. You know as well as I do suffering under utilitarianism has exactly the value the advocate of the moment cares to give it at the moment, whether that be negative, neutral, or vastly to the greater good. Why even attempt such a trivially obvious lie?
        klipt 1y ago
        > parents facing what I understand can be one of a lifetime's more difficult decisions. Do you believe that parents who choose to terminate a downs fetus are evil/utilitarian? Or are the doctors who perform the testing/abortion the evil/utilitarian ones? Or the lawmakers who allow such testing/abortion to be legal? Where exactly is the responsibility for being evil/utilitarian in your mind?
        throwanem 1y ago
        What? How does any of this follow from anything I've said? What's utilitarian about demanding a scapegoat for something that isn't even indictable? I'm not criticizing parents' decisions, but yours. This specifically includes your using the sorrow of others, in this case parents faced with a harrowing dilemma, as an excuse for your own behavior, rather than demonstrate anything resembling the courage of your supposed convictions.
        klipt 1y ago
- rwnspace 1y ago
  As it happens I'm neither an EA nor much of a utilitarian, in the traditional sense, probably closer to a Christian "post-rat". I'd be hard pressed to say that it's worth killing a bunch of people to say, save the universe. I still have had a good time reading Scott and occasionally engaging with other people in the community.
  - throwanem 1y ago
    > I'd be hard pressed to say that it's worth killing a bunch of people to say, save the universe. Well, thank God for that, at least. Do you honestly not realize how you sound? That's a genuine question, if not an especially friendly one. You can answer it out loud if you like, but no one really needs you to. I strongly suspect we agree on nearly nothing, including the moral value of your desiderata. But it makes some sense out of how people in this community go dangerous, if that's the sort of "architecture astronaut" philosophy you people are pairing with the assumption you can think yourselves out of anything and everything including human imperfection and emotion. The lack of oxygen up there has gone to your head.
    - rwnspace 1y ago
      While I'm detecting you feel strongly about trolley problems, I think it's fine to discuss them, and I really don't see why you need to try and shame me for providing an example of where I tend to sit on them.
      - throwanem 1y ago
        [dead]
    - rwnspace 1y ago
      Right, it's not like such "do this awful thing or do that awful thing" scenarios are constantly relevant in medical, the government, or dare I say, military decisions. You need to start actually having conversations with real individuals, I was giving you a chance, but I'm not bothering with it any more, except to say this: I am not "you people", I am not whatever you are projecting me to be, at all, least of all someone with a lack of moral disgust. Because I am capable of engaging in deliberate thought about awful things does not make me awful too, and I have no idea why you think that Scott Alexander is somehow the boogieman in the current ethico-political landscape, go look at Curtis Yarvin.

throwanem 1y ago

Strangely, a popular formulation of utilitarian ethics attracts utilitarian ethicists, some of whom were eugenicists and the like already by inclination, the rest merely having become so under the suasion of this fringe theory's false axioms. When your scheme of rules for how human societies should run does nothing to exclude or even discourage the worst atrocities of human history - when that scheme is fairly evaluable on its own terms as declaring those atrocities insufficient! - you've already made a catastrophically terrible mistake. To advocate it thereafter through persuasion rhetorical and otherwise is contemptible, but unsurprising.

klipt 1y ago
Anything that causes huge suffering, like forcing eugenics on people, is obviously not utilitarian because suffering has negative utility. Unless you mean things like parents choosing to screen for Down syndrome, which is not what most people call "eugenics" since it's completely voluntary.
- throwanem 1y ago
  That's just, like, your utility function, maaaaaaan. I joke, but that actually is the problem. I mean, look at you! Even trying to disclaim eugenics you can't manage not to espouse it, just in the "positive" or "voluntary" or "new eugenics" or "liberal eugenics" variety that bothers people less than all the others. I mean, I get why a programmable system of ethics appeals to programmers, just as a mathematical one to mathematicians, and for like cause in both cases. But you are required to acknowledge reality has the permanent right of veto, not merely pay lip service to the concept of it possibly for the moment holding that privilege.
  - klipt 1y ago
    So you're saying it should be illegal to test for Down syndrome in utero? Because that's a common practice in most developed countries. And it hasn't led to Nazi Germany in those countries.
    - throwanem 1y ago
      I'm saying you should own yourself a eugenicist and at least be honest about that, rather than strive to advance a heterodox and unappealing, actually rather amoral and inhuman, ideology through instrumental deceit. You certainly should not do so on the backs of parents facing what I understand can be one of a lifetime's more difficult decisions. You know as well as I do suffering under utilitarianism has exactly the value the advocate of the moment cares to give it at the moment, whether that be negative, neutral, or vastly to the greater good. Why even attempt such a trivially obvious lie?
      - klipt 1y ago
        > parents facing what I understand can be one of a lifetime's more difficult decisions. Do you believe that parents who choose to terminate a downs fetus are evil/utilitarian? Or are the doctors who perform the testing/abortion the evil/utilitarian ones? Or the lawmakers who allow such testing/abortion to be legal? Where exactly is the responsibility for being evil/utilitarian in your mind?
        throwanem 1y ago
        What? How does any of this follow from anything I've said? What's utilitarian about demanding a scapegoat for something that isn't even indictable? I'm not criticizing parents' decisions, but yours. This specifically includes your using the sorrow of others, in this case parents faced with a harrowing dilemma, as an excuse for your own behavior, rather than demonstrate anything resembling the courage of your supposed convictions.
        klipt 1y ago
rwnspace 1y ago
As it happens I'm neither an EA nor much of a utilitarian, in the traditional sense, probably closer to a Christian "post-rat". I'd be hard pressed to say that it's worth killing a bunch of people to say, save the universe. I still have had a good time reading Scott and occasionally engaging with other people in the community.
- throwanem 1y ago
  > I'd be hard pressed to say that it's worth killing a bunch of people to say, save the universe. Well, thank God for that, at least. Do you honestly not realize how you sound? That's a genuine question, if not an especially friendly one. You can answer it out loud if you like, but no one really needs you to. I strongly suspect we agree on nearly nothing, including the moral value of your desiderata. But it makes some sense out of how people in this community go dangerous, if that's the sort of "architecture astronaut" philosophy you people are pairing with the assumption you can think yourselves out of anything and everything including human imperfection and emotion. The lack of oxygen up there has gone to your head.
  - rwnspace 1y ago
    While I'm detecting you feel strongly about trolley problems, I think it's fine to discuss them, and I really don't see why you need to try and shame me for providing an example of where I tend to sit on them.
    - throwanem 1y ago
      [dead]
  - rwnspace 1y ago
    Right, it's not like such "do this awful thing or do that awful thing" scenarios are constantly relevant in medical, the government, or dare I say, military decisions. You need to start actually having conversations with real individuals, I was giving you a chance, but I'm not bothering with it any more, except to say this: I am not "you people", I am not whatever you are projecting me to be, at all, least of all someone with a lack of moral disgust. Because I am capable of engaging in deliberate thought about awful things does not make me awful too, and I have no idea why you think that Scott Alexander is somehow the boogieman in the current ethico-political landscape, go look at Curtis Yarvin.