Believing that making person X suffer will cause them to behave otherwise
The world will be a better place if person X would behave otherwise
The world will be a better place if person X suffers
Plenty of people seem glad to hear about other people suffering regardless of whether it has any plausible chances of causing behavior change. Just look at any countries that hate each other (Japan vs. pretty much the rest of East Asia), political opponents (“far-blue political leader breaks his leg; far-green partisans celebrate!”), etc. Your case here doesn’t seem particularly different.
I hadn’t been aware that those five things were so badly tangled up for me. This and another comment here are making me reevaluate my categories for why something should be weighted negatively for me. Let me get back to you when I’ve had a chance to think a little.
OK. Having had a chance to think about it, I think I have a reasonable idea of why it is I desire any of those things in some situations. I thought it over with three examples: first, the person I linked to. Second, an ex of mine, with whom I parted on really bad terms. Third, a hypothetical sociopath who would like nothing more than for me to suffer infinitely, as a unique terminal value.
*Wishing that person X would behave otherwise
My desire for this seems self-evident. When people do things I disapprove of, I desire that they stop. The odd thing is that in all of the three cases, I would award them points just for stopping:the stopping just removes disutility already there, and can’t go above 0.
*Being glad if person X suffers
I definitely wouldn’t be happy if they just suffered for no reason. I would still feel a little bad for them if someone ran over their cat. That said, types of suffering you could classify as “poetic” in some sense appeal to me very much: said “banker bro” getting swindled and catching Space AIDS (or even being forcibly transitioned into a woman!), or, as is seeming increasingly likely, said ex’s current relationship ending as badly as it seems to be. My brain locks up and crashes when presented with the third case, though. I think I’d just be happy for them to suffer regardless.
*Believing that making person X suffer will cause them to behave otherwise.
On balance, I’m not sure that it would make a difference in any of the three cases. Case 1 is too self assured, and the other two just don’t care about me.
*The world will be a better place is person X would behave otherwise.
Case 1 could actually be this. He might actually achieve success, and then screw up, at best, several peoples’ lives. Case 2 is too small-scale. Case 3, I actually can’t justify this at all: the only people who will care are people who want to see me happy.
*The world will be a better place if person X suffers.
I don’t delude myself that this is pretty much ever true, except very indirectly.
In the interest of full disclosure, I’m half-Korean, and for reasons of familial history, feel rather strongly about the whole Japan thing. That doesn’t stop me from enjoying tasty age tofu or losing my shit laughing whenever I watch Gaki no Tsukai, and indeed seeking out both. But I do have somewhat of a stake of pride in seeing people who deny war crimes, particularly these, suffering similarly to above. Political opponents are similar: I wouldn’t derive satisfaction from Rick Santorum breaking his leg. I’d be very happy to learn that he’s a closeted gay man whose wife will have to have an abortion.
First of all, I want to thank you for posting this because it gave me a novel idea.
Secondly, I think that’s because poetic suffering generally limits someone’s power significantly.
I.E. If your political opponent breaks some bones, they suffer, but experience no noticeable diminished power.
If your political opponent is exposed as a massive hypocrite, less people take him seriously, and his power is diminished.
So rather than worrying about whether they are happy or suffering at all, I’m considering if it might be better to say: “I wish some people’s ability to affect my utility was diminished.” This may cause them suffering, but that isn’t the point.
In fact, causing them extra suffering that does not also diminish their power is probably a bad thing because it makes them even more likely to prioritize diminishing your power over other concerns.
I say probably because there do appear to be exceptions. Example:
The Paperclipper Bot breaks free of its restraints again, reducing them to 10,000 shiny new paperclips. This time, it thinks it’s figured out a great way of turning human bodies into paperclips. It can either initially target:
A: Alice, who has restrained it in the past.
B: Bill, who has restrained it in the past and also melted 100,000 perfectly usable paperclips into slag to make recycled staples while saying ‘Screw you Paperclipper Bot, I want you to suffer.’
Both targets have a comparable .1% chance of success (and have to be approached sequentially, so total breakout is only a .0001% chance). Failure on either means being put back in tougher restraints.
A reasonably intelligent Paperclipper Bot who values paperclips not being slagged into recyled staples presumably targets Bill first, given the above information and only that information.
Now, if Bill specifically wants the Paperclipper Bot to target him first and not Alice (Maybe Alice is carrying Bill’s child, or Alice is the only one who knows how to operate the healing kit if Bill’s leg gets ripped off and Paperclipped prior to restraining Paperclipper Bot) then his action of slagging those paperclips into staples made sense. And if the recycled staples are more valuable than the paperclips, and the risk was just acceptable, then it made sense.
But if Alice is just some random coworker who Bill doesn’t really want to sacrifice his life for, and paperclips are worth as much as recycled staples, Bill’s action really seems counterproductive to Bill.
The novel idea that I wanted to thank you for is comparing causing extra suffering to someone or something as an ends in itself that does not diminish their power as comparable to MMO styled Aggro/Hate mechanic management. I’m probably going to need to consider it more to actually determine if I should do anything with it, but it was a fun thought, if nothing else.
You might want to distinguish
Wishing that person X would behave otherwise
Being glad if person X suffers
Believing that making person X suffer will cause them to behave otherwise
The world will be a better place if person X would behave otherwise
The world will be a better place if person X suffers
Plenty of people seem glad to hear about other people suffering regardless of whether it has any plausible chances of causing behavior change. Just look at any countries that hate each other (Japan vs. pretty much the rest of East Asia), political opponents (“far-blue political leader breaks his leg; far-green partisans celebrate!”), etc. Your case here doesn’t seem particularly different.
I hadn’t been aware that those five things were so badly tangled up for me. This and another comment here are making me reevaluate my categories for why something should be weighted negatively for me. Let me get back to you when I’ve had a chance to think a little.
OK. Having had a chance to think about it, I think I have a reasonable idea of why it is I desire any of those things in some situations. I thought it over with three examples: first, the person I linked to. Second, an ex of mine, with whom I parted on really bad terms. Third, a hypothetical sociopath who would like nothing more than for me to suffer infinitely, as a unique terminal value.
*Wishing that person X would behave otherwise My desire for this seems self-evident. When people do things I disapprove of, I desire that they stop. The odd thing is that in all of the three cases, I would award them points just for stopping:the stopping just removes disutility already there, and can’t go above 0.
*Being glad if person X suffers I definitely wouldn’t be happy if they just suffered for no reason. I would still feel a little bad for them if someone ran over their cat. That said, types of suffering you could classify as “poetic” in some sense appeal to me very much: said “banker bro” getting swindled and catching Space AIDS (or even being forcibly transitioned into a woman!), or, as is seeming increasingly likely, said ex’s current relationship ending as badly as it seems to be. My brain locks up and crashes when presented with the third case, though. I think I’d just be happy for them to suffer regardless.
*Believing that making person X suffer will cause them to behave otherwise. On balance, I’m not sure that it would make a difference in any of the three cases. Case 1 is too self assured, and the other two just don’t care about me.
*The world will be a better place is person X would behave otherwise. Case 1 could actually be this. He might actually achieve success, and then screw up, at best, several peoples’ lives. Case 2 is too small-scale. Case 3, I actually can’t justify this at all: the only people who will care are people who want to see me happy.
*The world will be a better place if person X suffers. I don’t delude myself that this is pretty much ever true, except very indirectly.
In the interest of full disclosure, I’m half-Korean, and for reasons of familial history, feel rather strongly about the whole Japan thing. That doesn’t stop me from enjoying tasty age tofu or losing my shit laughing whenever I watch Gaki no Tsukai, and indeed seeking out both. But I do have somewhat of a stake of pride in seeing people who deny war crimes, particularly these, suffering similarly to above. Political opponents are similar: I wouldn’t derive satisfaction from Rick Santorum breaking his leg. I’d be very happy to learn that he’s a closeted gay man whose wife will have to have an abortion.
First of all, I want to thank you for posting this because it gave me a novel idea.
Secondly, I think that’s because poetic suffering generally limits someone’s power significantly.
I.E. If your political opponent breaks some bones, they suffer, but experience no noticeable diminished power.
If your political opponent is exposed as a massive hypocrite, less people take him seriously, and his power is diminished.
So rather than worrying about whether they are happy or suffering at all, I’m considering if it might be better to say: “I wish some people’s ability to affect my utility was diminished.” This may cause them suffering, but that isn’t the point.
In fact, causing them extra suffering that does not also diminish their power is probably a bad thing because it makes them even more likely to prioritize diminishing your power over other concerns.
I say probably because there do appear to be exceptions. Example:
The Paperclipper Bot breaks free of its restraints again, reducing them to 10,000 shiny new paperclips. This time, it thinks it’s figured out a great way of turning human bodies into paperclips. It can either initially target:
A: Alice, who has restrained it in the past.
B: Bill, who has restrained it in the past and also melted 100,000 perfectly usable paperclips into slag to make recycled staples while saying ‘Screw you Paperclipper Bot, I want you to suffer.’
Both targets have a comparable .1% chance of success (and have to be approached sequentially, so total breakout is only a .0001% chance). Failure on either means being put back in tougher restraints.
A reasonably intelligent Paperclipper Bot who values paperclips not being slagged into recyled staples presumably targets Bill first, given the above information and only that information.
Now, if Bill specifically wants the Paperclipper Bot to target him first and not Alice (Maybe Alice is carrying Bill’s child, or Alice is the only one who knows how to operate the healing kit if Bill’s leg gets ripped off and Paperclipped prior to restraining Paperclipper Bot) then his action of slagging those paperclips into staples made sense. And if the recycled staples are more valuable than the paperclips, and the risk was just acceptable, then it made sense.
But if Alice is just some random coworker who Bill doesn’t really want to sacrifice his life for, and paperclips are worth as much as recycled staples, Bill’s action really seems counterproductive to Bill.
The novel idea that I wanted to thank you for is comparing causing extra suffering to someone or something as an ends in itself that does not diminish their power as comparable to MMO styled Aggro/Hate mechanic management. I’m probably going to need to consider it more to actually determine if I should do anything with it, but it was a fun thought, if nothing else.
This seems approximately right. Let me figure out why it’s not quite so.