If there’s a historical consensus that the Civil War could have been avoided, I have not encountered it; and that being so, might as well have the Civil War sooner rather than later.
Well, no way to avoid it other than letting the Confederacy secede. Oh what am I saying; sure if we did that we might saved a few hundred thousand lives but we’d be letting the evil of slavery continue, and that’s obviously such a great evil we can end the discussion right there. We don’t need a decision theory when we’ve got our trusty moral intuitions right?
But on the safe side why don’t we “shut up and multiply” for a second, see what our bargain bought us...
We paid 750,000 lives in the Civil War to free less than 4,000,000 slaves; in other words, the suffering of a lifetime of slavery is evidently worth 18.75% of the death of a free person in a horrific war. In other words, for the trade to come out equal a slave would be suffering more than a chemotherapy patient with recurring metastasized antibiotic-resistant breast cancer and sepsis. And even that weight is far too high; a slave could only expect to suffer for 20 years on average while a free man typically lived to 41, more than twice that value, not to mention that QALY weights are normed against a society with free pornography and twinkies rather than one with regular TB epidemics. So really terminal cancer is an absolute wonderland of fun compared to being in bondage! No wonder it was such a strong moral imperative to justify starting a preposterously bloody war over...
I concede defeat good sir, in the face of your flawless logic. I’m sorry ever to have doubted your well-considered opinion.
Depends on how long slavery would have lasted without the war. You don’t just free current slaves, you prevent future generations from ever being enslaved. I take that to be Yudkowsky’s point- the earlier the better, because the more slaves you prevent.
Edit: Actually, use your own numbers:
a slave could only expect to suffer for 20 years on average while a free man typically lived to 41
This implies converting someone from slave to free should increase their life by 20+ years, approximately half the life time of a free person. Just multiplying, using 1 free person dead = 41 years lost, one slave freed = 21 years gained, we pass a cost benefit test.
This implies converting someone from slave to free should increase their life by 20+ years, approximately half the life time of a free person. Just multiplying, using 1 free person dead = 41 years lost, one slave freed = 21 years gained, we pass a cost benefit test.
Not quite. The lower life expectancy due to slavery may be the result of early malnourishment, say, which manumission would not fix.
I’ve seen, but have not investigated, arguments that the civil war and emancipation of slavery led to lower life expectancy among former slaves, and those sorts of claims should be addressed in this calculation.
One historical note I was not aware of until several months back, which was covered in a few books on related subjects which I read at the time, was that for more than a decade after the Civil War, the standard of living and level of equality experienced by recently free blacks was actually quite high. The levels of prejudice which led to the passage of the Jim Crow laws were actually cultivated by deliberately targeted propaganda by upper class industrialists who feared the political threat of lower class white and black laborers acting together as a voting bloc.
(I was initially skeptical of this as a posited explanation for the levels of prejudice which came about in ensuing decades, since humans can easily be induced to turn on each other without any pragmatic incentives, but not only do writings from those who were alive at the time reflect a genuinely dramatic nosedive in the state of racial relations, but some of those who were involved in the propaganda efforts wrote with surprising frankness about their intentions.)
It’s questionable how predictable this turn of events could have been prior to the emancipation, but had it been avoided, the quality of life for free black Americans in ensuing decades might have been considerably higher, and for a decade or so after the war, their quality of life was likely rather higher than we might expect.
The levels of prejudice which led to the passage of the Jim Crow laws were actually cultivated by deliberately targeted propaganda by upper class industrialists who feared the political threat of lower class white and black laborers acting together as a voting bloc.
I think the argument I saw hinged on the strife that happened after emancipation, which is perhaps an argument for more Reconstruction rather than an argument against emancipation. But I don’t remember it well enough; perhaps someone else has seen something similar.
Sure, doing this calculation right would require a great deal more research. Certainly, my prior would be that freeing a slave would result in a longer life expectancy, but I would not expect the gap between slave and free to instantaneously close.
I just wanted to point out that the large slave/free life expectancy gap he was presenting can work against him- and as a result he wasn’t “shutting up and multiplying” correctly, which should undermine the weight of the sarcasm at the end of his post.
“Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
-- Abraham Lincoln
in other words, the suffering of a lifetime of slavery is evidently worth 18.75% of the death of a free person in a horrific war.
Leaving aside all moral considerations of collective responsibility and individual complicity… and switching to my rough model of preference utilitarianism, which I generally don’t use… this would sound like an incredible, unbelievably lucky bargain with this cruel universe at HALF a life for a freed slave. At 18,75% it appears perverse even to hesitate in this non-dilemma.
P.S.: instead of preference utilitarianism, I do find it much more comfortable to use broadly Christian virtue ethics for a snap moral decision. According to which… well, let’s just mention that even a Catholic like Chesterton could be unapologetic in his respect for the Jacobins. Never mind the Christian abolitionists of the day.
P.S.: instead of preference utilitarianism, I do find it much more comfortable to use broadly Christian virtue ethics for a snap moral decision. According to which… well, let’s just mention that even a Catholic like Chesterton could be unapologetic in his respect for the Jacobins. Never mind the Christian abolitionists of the day.
I’m unclear what this actually means, considering there are usually Christians on every side of moral conflicts.
Backing out a little… if I see two people about to shoot someone tied to a tree, on your view am I ever justified in shooting them both to save the tied-up person’s life? If so, what does it minimally take to justify that?
Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not a utilitarian, I just don’t like hypocrisy.
But in my personal opinion? It’d depend on who’s tied to the tree and who’s shooting. I’d side with the people I value personally first; if they’re all strangers I probably would have to go with the most aesthetically pleasant side or just sit it out. This is assuming a consequence-free vacuum of course; IRL there would be legal/social concerns which would trump any initial preference, not to mention how utterly unfamiliar I am with firearms.
Ah, sorry. I thought you were arguing that the Civil War was a bad idea because it killed more people than it saved. My mistake, and thanks for answering my question.
But in my personal opinion? It’d depend on who’s tied to the tree and who’s shooting. I’d side with the people I value personally first; if they’re all strangers I probably would have to go with the most aesthetically pleasant side or just sit it out.
For clarification here, do you mean behavioral aesthetics such as which people are trying to tie someone to a tree and shoot them, visual aesthetics (which side is better looking,) or some combination or alternative?
A sort of a combo; aesthetics covers a lot of ground. Attractiveness, intelligence, how interesting/valuable their job is and how skilled they are in it, how cute they are (if they’re a kid or other small mammal), how well behaved they are, etc. It’s a lot easier to judge any given example than lay out hard and fast rules.
Well, no way to avoid it other than letting the Confederacy secede. Oh what am I saying; sure if we did that we might saved a few hundred thousand lives but we’d be letting the evil of slavery continue, and that’s obviously such a great evil we can end the discussion right there. We don’t need a decision theory when we’ve got our trusty moral intuitions right?
But on the safe side why don’t we “shut up and multiply” for a second, see what our bargain bought us...
We paid 750,000 lives in the Civil War to free less than 4,000,000 slaves; in other words, the suffering of a lifetime of slavery is evidently worth 18.75% of the death of a free person in a horrific war. In other words, for the trade to come out equal a slave would be suffering more than a chemotherapy patient with recurring metastasized antibiotic-resistant breast cancer and sepsis. And even that weight is far too high; a slave could only expect to suffer for 20 years on average while a free man typically lived to 41, more than twice that value, not to mention that QALY weights are normed against a society with free pornography and twinkies rather than one with regular TB epidemics. So really terminal cancer is an absolute wonderland of fun compared to being in bondage! No wonder it was such a strong moral imperative to justify starting a preposterously bloody war over...
I concede defeat good sir, in the face of your flawless logic. I’m sorry ever to have doubted your well-considered opinion.
Depends on how long slavery would have lasted without the war. You don’t just free current slaves, you prevent future generations from ever being enslaved. I take that to be Yudkowsky’s point- the earlier the better, because the more slaves you prevent.
Edit: Actually, use your own numbers:
This implies converting someone from slave to free should increase their life by 20+ years, approximately half the life time of a free person. Just multiplying, using 1 free person dead = 41 years lost, one slave freed = 21 years gained, we pass a cost benefit test.
Not quite. The lower life expectancy due to slavery may be the result of early malnourishment, say, which manumission would not fix.
I’ve seen, but have not investigated, arguments that the civil war and emancipation of slavery led to lower life expectancy among former slaves, and those sorts of claims should be addressed in this calculation.
One historical note I was not aware of until several months back, which was covered in a few books on related subjects which I read at the time, was that for more than a decade after the Civil War, the standard of living and level of equality experienced by recently free blacks was actually quite high. The levels of prejudice which led to the passage of the Jim Crow laws were actually cultivated by deliberately targeted propaganda by upper class industrialists who feared the political threat of lower class white and black laborers acting together as a voting bloc.
(I was initially skeptical of this as a posited explanation for the levels of prejudice which came about in ensuing decades, since humans can easily be induced to turn on each other without any pragmatic incentives, but not only do writings from those who were alive at the time reflect a genuinely dramatic nosedive in the state of racial relations, but some of those who were involved in the propaganda efforts wrote with surprising frankness about their intentions.)
It’s questionable how predictable this turn of events could have been prior to the emancipation, but had it been avoided, the quality of life for free black Americans in ensuing decades might have been considerably higher, and for a decade or so after the war, their quality of life was likely rather higher than we might expect.
I think the argument I saw hinged on the strife that happened after emancipation, which is perhaps an argument for more Reconstruction rather than an argument against emancipation. But I don’t remember it well enough; perhaps someone else has seen something similar.
Sure, doing this calculation right would require a great deal more research. Certainly, my prior would be that freeing a slave would result in a longer life expectancy, but I would not expect the gap between slave and free to instantaneously close.
I just wanted to point out that the large slave/free life expectancy gap he was presenting can work against him- and as a result he wasn’t “shutting up and multiplying” correctly, which should undermine the weight of the sarcasm at the end of his post.
“Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
-- Abraham Lincoln
Leaving aside all moral considerations of collective responsibility and individual complicity… and switching to my rough model of preference utilitarianism, which I generally don’t use… this would sound like an incredible, unbelievably lucky bargain with this cruel universe at HALF a life for a freed slave. At 18,75% it appears perverse even to hesitate in this non-dilemma.
P.S.: instead of preference utilitarianism, I do find it much more comfortable to use broadly Christian virtue ethics for a snap moral decision. According to which… well, let’s just mention that even a Catholic like Chesterton could be unapologetic in his respect for the Jacobins. Never mind the Christian abolitionists of the day.
I’m unclear what this actually means, considering there are usually Christians on every side of moral conflicts.
Backing out a little… if I see two people about to shoot someone tied to a tree, on your view am I ever justified in shooting them both to save the tied-up person’s life? If so, what does it minimally take to justify that?
Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not a utilitarian, I just don’t like hypocrisy.
But in my personal opinion? It’d depend on who’s tied to the tree and who’s shooting. I’d side with the people I value personally first; if they’re all strangers I probably would have to go with the most aesthetically pleasant side or just sit it out. This is assuming a consequence-free vacuum of course; IRL there would be legal/social concerns which would trump any initial preference, not to mention how utterly unfamiliar I am with firearms.
Ah, sorry. I thought you were arguing that the Civil War was a bad idea because it killed more people than it saved. My mistake, and thanks for answering my question.
For clarification here, do you mean behavioral aesthetics such as which people are trying to tie someone to a tree and shoot them, visual aesthetics (which side is better looking,) or some combination or alternative?
A sort of a combo; aesthetics covers a lot of ground. Attractiveness, intelligence, how interesting/valuable their job is and how skilled they are in it, how cute they are (if they’re a kid or other small mammal), how well behaved they are, etc. It’s a lot easier to judge any given example than lay out hard and fast rules.