4 ms·
Assumed independence. You are talking about a strictly different setup. Assume that these individuals don't know each other.
by maaku 12y ago
Assumed independence. You are talking about a strictly different setup. Assume that these individuals don't know each other.
- shawnz 12y agoI don't think he is making the assumption that they know each other. Each individual has a tolerance of what they can comfortably cope with. If 3^^^3 people were all experiencing a pain that is below that tolerance, nobody would be prevented from happiness. However in the other situation, the tortured individual clearly would be.
- maaku 12y agoThat's an example of infinite or unbounded utility functions: no matter how many specks of dust in the eye, it will never add up to a single person being tortured for 50 years. Even 3^^^^^^^^^^^3 specks of dust. Unfortunately the mathematics of infinite and/or unbounded utility functions doesn't work out well. It leads to some seriously messed up edge cases. (So does finite utilitariansm, to be fair -- [Pascal's mugging](http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/pascal.pdf http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/pascal.pdf) -- but these are fully dealt with by decision theory, whereas the infinite or unbounded cases are not). It's not very strong, but it is evidence that we should be accepting of the calculations of finite utilitarianism since the formalization works out better in cases which are within the realm of our experience.
- walterbell 12y agoTalk to an urban planner or someone working in disaster relief. Empathic "strangers" help others, in many contexts, often at personal risk. That's what separates humans from singularitarian quantum computing devices.