But prisons can be justified from a pragmatic point of view.
What’s the difference between the “pragmatic point of view” (which it seems you justify) and the “benefit of the many” (which I understand you don’t justify)? This seems to me a meaningless distinction.
Certainly we detain these people for the benefit of the many, but we do not torture them
Well, most people don’t perceive enough benefit for society to hurting prisoners more than they currently are being hurt. So that’s rather besides the point, isn’t it? The point is we detain and oppress the few for the benefit of the many.
and lately there is a trend to give them more opportunities to work and create.
Even assuming I accept such a trend exists (not sure about it), again we don’t consider such opportunities to be against the benefit of the many. So it’s besides the point.
So it will indeed become possible to convince the majority of population to willingly cooperate and oppress the few.
As I already said we already cooperate in order to oppress the few. We call those few “prisoners”, which we’re oppressing for the benefit of the many.
And when such a Master of rationality as Eliezer himself argued in favour of torturing some hapless chap for 50 years just so many people would be spared an inconvenience of blinking once, you can see where this will go.
No, I’m sorry, but I really REALLY don’t see where it’s supposed to be going. In the current world people are tortured to death for much less reason than that. Not even for the small benefit of 3^^^^3 people, but for no benefit or even for negative benefit.
I’d rather argue with someone about torture on the terms of expected utility and disutility for the whole of humanity, rather than with someone who just repeats the mantra “If you oppose torture, then you’re just a terrorist-lover who hates our freedoms” or for that matter the opposite “If you support torture for any reason whatsoever, even in extreme hypothetical scenarios, you’re just as bad as the terrorists”.
And currently it’s the latter practice that seems dominant in actual discussions (and defenses also) of torture, not any utilitarian tactic of assigning utilities to expected outcomes.
What’s the difference between the “pragmatic point of view” (which it seems you justify) and the “benefit of the many” (which I understand you don’t justify)? This seems to me a meaningless distinction.
It seems that way because it is that way. I simply failed to communicate my idea properly. In fact I mentioned that
I do not argue that no judgements in favour of moderate individual damage vs. huge spread damage will be justified. Just that in specific case of dustspecks versus torture I don’t think most of us should choose torture.
What I truly want is not to dismiss “benefit of the many”(nothing wrong with it), but to bring into focus the issue of comparing utility functions, which in this case I think Eliezer messed up.
As I already said we already cooperate in order to oppress the few. We call those few “prisoners”, which we’re oppressing for the benefit of the many.
Yes we do. And it seems that we both prefer to actually talk about such decisions in terms of utility gain or loss. But just because two of us are being reasonable does not mean that everyone else will be. What worries me is that some people learning about “the Way” form Eliezer’s post may acquire a bit of bias toward “the many” side of such dilemmas. And then when the issue will arise in the future they will chose the wrong side and perhaps convince many others to take the wrong side.
No, I’m sorry, but I really REALLY don’t see where it’s supposed to be going. In the current world people are tortured to death for much less reason than that. Not even for the small benefit of 3^^^^3 people, but for no benefit or even for negative benefit.
Now this is not certain, but I expect Eliezer to have a huge impact on the future of our species, because issues of thinking and deciding are indeed central to our daily lives. And any inadvertent mistake here or in his book will have noticeable consequences. Someone in the future will take out that book and point to how Eliezer prefers to condemn one person to torture instead of having 3^^^^3 people blink, and the audience may well be convinced that it is better in general to prefer “the many”, because Eliezer will be an authority and their brains will just dump 3^^^^3 into “many” mental bucket. Better to introduce a few cautionary lines into that post and book now, while there is time to do it.
I’d rather argue with someone about torture on the terms of expected utility and disutility for the whole of humanity, rather than with someone who just repeats the mantra “If you oppose torture, then you’re just a terrorist-lover who hates our freedoms” or for that matter the opposite “If you support torture for any reason whatsoever, even in extreme hypothetical scenarios, you’re just as bad as the terrorists”.
So would I. I am not trying to argue with you here. As far as I can see we agree on pretty much everything so far. I probably just fail to convey my ideas most of the time.
What’s the difference between the “pragmatic point of view” (which it seems you justify) and the “benefit of the many” (which I understand you don’t justify)? This seems to me a meaningless distinction.
Well, most people don’t perceive enough benefit for society to hurting prisoners more than they currently are being hurt. So that’s rather besides the point, isn’t it? The point is we detain and oppress the few for the benefit of the many.
Even assuming I accept such a trend exists (not sure about it), again we don’t consider such opportunities to be against the benefit of the many. So it’s besides the point.
As I already said we already cooperate in order to oppress the few. We call those few “prisoners”, which we’re oppressing for the benefit of the many.
No, I’m sorry, but I really REALLY don’t see where it’s supposed to be going. In the current world people are tortured to death for much less reason than that. Not even for the small benefit of 3^^^^3 people, but for no benefit or even for negative benefit.
I’d rather argue with someone about torture on the terms of expected utility and disutility for the whole of humanity, rather than with someone who just repeats the mantra “If you oppose torture, then you’re just a terrorist-lover who hates our freedoms” or for that matter the opposite “If you support torture for any reason whatsoever, even in extreme hypothetical scenarios, you’re just as bad as the terrorists”.
And currently it’s the latter practice that seems dominant in actual discussions (and defenses also) of torture, not any utilitarian tactic of assigning utilities to expected outcomes.
It seems that way because it is that way. I simply failed to communicate my idea properly. In fact I mentioned that
What I truly want is not to dismiss “benefit of the many”(nothing wrong with it), but to bring into focus the issue of comparing utility functions, which in this case I think Eliezer messed up.
Yes we do. And it seems that we both prefer to actually talk about such decisions in terms of utility gain or loss. But just because two of us are being reasonable does not mean that everyone else will be. What worries me is that some people learning about “the Way” form Eliezer’s post may acquire a bit of bias toward “the many” side of such dilemmas. And then when the issue will arise in the future they will chose the wrong side and perhaps convince many others to take the wrong side.
Now this is not certain, but I expect Eliezer to have a huge impact on the future of our species, because issues of thinking and deciding are indeed central to our daily lives. And any inadvertent mistake here or in his book will have noticeable consequences. Someone in the future will take out that book and point to how Eliezer prefers to condemn one person to torture instead of having 3^^^^3 people blink, and the audience may well be convinced that it is better in general to prefer “the many”, because Eliezer will be an authority and their brains will just dump 3^^^^3 into “many” mental bucket. Better to introduce a few cautionary lines into that post and book now, while there is time to do it.
So would I. I am not trying to argue with you here. As far as I can see we agree on pretty much everything so far. I probably just fail to convey my ideas most of the time.