EDIT: Sorry, turns out you already answered my question. Here are some replacement questions.
You’ve said that you will do nothing, rather than violate a right in order to prevent other rights being violated. Yet you also say that people attempting to violate rights waive their rights not to be stopped. Is this rule designed for the purpose of allowing you to violate people’s rights in order to protect others? That seems unfair to people in situations where there’s no clearly identifiable moustache-twirling villain.
You have also said that people can waive any of their rights—for example, people waive their right not to have sex in order to have sex, and people waive their right not to be murdered in order to commit suicide. Doesn’t this deny the existence of rape within marriage? Isn’t it, in fact, the exact argument that was used to oppose laws prohibiting rape within marriage? This seems worrying. (Obviously, there are other, similar cases that can be constructed, but this one is a major problem.)
Finally, you mention that some actions which do not violate rights are nonetheless “being a dick”, and you will act to prevent and punish these acts in order to discourage them. Doesn’t this imply that there are additional aspects to morality not contained by “rights”? Do you act as a Standard-LessWrong-Consequentialist-Utilitarian™ with regards to Not Being A Dick?
You’ve said that you will do nothing, rather than violate a right in order to prevent other rights being violated. Yet you also say that people attempting to violate rights waive their rights not to be stopped. Is this rule designed for the purpose of allowing you to violate people’s rights in order to protect others? That seems unfair to people in situations where there’s no clearly identifiable moustache-twirling villain.
I wish everyone in this thread would be more careful about using the word “right”. If you are trying to violate somebody’s rights, you don’t have “a right not to be stopped”. You have your perfectly normal complement of rights, and some of them are getting in the way of protecting someone else’s rights, so, since you’re the active party, your (contextually relevant) rights are suspended. They remain in effect out of that context (if you are coming at me with a knife I may violently prevent you from being a threat to me; I may not then take your wallet and run off cackling; I may not, ten years later, visit you in prison and inform you that your mother is dead when she is not; etc.).
You have also said that people can waive any of their rights—for example, people waive their right not to have sex in order to have sex, and people waive their right not to be murdered in order to commit suicide. Doesn’t this deny the existence of rape within marriage?
That’s a good question, but the answer is no. A marriage does not constitute a promise to be permanently sexually available. You could opt to issue standing permission, and I gather this was customary and expected in historical marriages, but you can revoke it at any time; your rights are yours and you may assert them at will. I don’t object to people granting each other standing permission to do things and sticking with it if that’s how they prefer to conduct themselves, but morally speaking the option to refuse remains open.
Finally, you mention that some actions which do not violate rights are nonetheless “being a dick”, and you will act to prevent and punish these acts in order to discourage them. Doesn’t this imply that there are additional aspects to morality not contained by “rights”?
No. There’s morality, and then there’s all the many things that are not morality. Consequentialists (theoretically, anyway) assign value to everything and add it all up according to the same arithmetic—with whatever epicycles they need not to rob banks and kidnap medical test subjects—but that’s not what I’m doing. Morality limits behavior in certain basic ways. You can be a huge dick and technically not do anything morally wrong. (And people can get back at you all kinds of ways, and not technically do anything morally wrong! It’s not a fun way to live and I don’t really recommend it.)
Do you act as a Standard-LessWrong-Consequentialist-Utilitarian™ with regards to Not Being A Dick?
No. Actually, you could probably call me sort of virtuist with respect to dickishness. I am sort of Standard-LessWrong-Consequentialist-Utilitarian™ with respect to prudence, which is a whole ’nother thing.
I wish everyone in this thread would be more careful about using the word “right”. If you are trying to violate somebody’s rights, you don’t have “a right not to be stopped”.
Well, sure. I did read your explanation(s). I was assuming the worst-case scenario for the hypothetical, where you have to violate someone’s rights in order to protect others. For example, the classic lying-to-the-nazis-about-the-jews scenario.
That’s a good question, but the answer is no. A marriage does not constitute a promise to be permanently sexually available.
Not anymore, no. Because we changed the rules. Because of all the rapes.
You could opt to issue standing permission, and I gather this was customary and expected in historical marriages, but you can revoke it at any time; your rights are yours and you may assert them at will.
I … see, that seems consistent. I assume you can waive the right to abolish an agreement at will, too? That’s the foundation of contract law, but I don’t want to assume.
There’s morality, and then there’s all the many things that are not morality … You can be a huge dick and technically not do anything morally wrong. (And people can get back at you all kinds of ways, and not technically do anything morally wrong! It’s not a fun way to live and I don’t really recommend it.)
Indeed, and that’s what I’m asking about. What is this “don’t be a dick” function, and what place does it hold?
No. Actually, you could probably call me sort of virtuist with respect to dickishness. I am sort of Standard-LessWrong-Consequentialist-Utilitarian™ with respect to prudence, which is a whole ’nother thing.
Huh. Shame.
… what’s “prudence” in your nomenclature? I haven’t seen the term as you use it.
If you are trying to violate someone’s rights, then your contextually relevant rights are forfeited. For example, the Nazi has forfeited the right not to be lied to.
I assume you can waive the right to abolish an agreement at will, too? That’s the foundation of contract law, but I don’t want to assume.
I’m not sure I understand.
What is this “don’t be a dick” function, and what place does it hold?
Well, some people are motivated to avoid being dicks, and might value information about how to do it. It’s not very ontologically special.
… what’s “prudence” in your nomenclature? I haven’t seen the term as you use it.
To me, it looks like consequentialists do prudence exclusively, and name it “morality”, instead of actually doing any morality. Prudence is arranging for things to be how you would like them to be.
If you are trying to violate someone’s rights, then your contextually relevant rights are forfeited. For example, the Nazi has forfeited the right not to be lied to.
Yes, I know. Hence my question:
You’ve said that you will do nothing, rather than violate a right in order to prevent other rights being violated. Yet you also say that people attempting to violate rights waive their rights not to be stopped. Is this rule designed for the purpose of allowing you to violate people’s rights in order to protect others? That seems unfair to people in situations where there’s no clearly identifiable moustache-twirling villain.
You see?
I’m not sure I understand.
Can I waive my right to un-waive a right? For example, if I waive my right not to work for someone, can I also waive my right to change my mind? As in, a standard contract?
I would assume so, but hey, it can’t hurt to ask.
Well, some people are motivated to avoid being dicks, and might value information about how to do it. It’s not very ontologically special.
Are you, personally, motivated to discourage dickish behaviour? You are, right? You mentioned you would sue someone for being a dick to you, if it were illegal, even if it was perfectly moral for them to do so.
To me, it looks like consequentialists do prudence exclusively, and name it “morality”, instead of actually doing any morality. Prudence is arranging for things to be how you would like them to be.
… as long as “how you would like them to be” doesn’t violate any rights. I think I see what you mean by that.
… ah, and “how you would like things to be” includes “no dickishness”, right?
I do not see; can you start that line of inquiry over completely for me?
Can I waive my right to un-waive a right?
I haven’t actually thought about this before, but my instinct is no. Although if you arrange for it to be really hard to communicate a change of mind, someone who went by their last communication with you might not be doing anything wrong, just making a sincere mistake.
Are you, personally, motivated to discourage dickish behaviour?
I try to minimize it from and around myself. I am not on a Global Dickishness Reduction Campaign of any kind. Maybe I should have said not that I’m not a consequentialist about it, but rather that I’m neither agent- nor recipient-neutral about it? How I would like things to be certainly refers to dickishness.
In cases where rights conflict, and there’s no alternative that doesn’t violate at least one, I privilege the null action. (I considered denying ought-implies-can, instead, but decided that committed me to the existence of moral luck and wasn’t okay.) “The null action” is the one where you don’t do anything.
You also say that attackers lose their contextually relevant rights, so you can violate their rights in order to defend others.
My original question was, doesn’t that feel like a patch to allow you to act like a consequentialist when it’s clear you have to?
Isn’t that unfair to people in situations where there is no attacker for you to focus on, where relieving their suffering is not a matter of taking out a convenient target?
Also, I just realized this, but doesn’t that mean you should be really concerned about any laws punishing things that don’t violate rights, since those criminals haven’t waived their rights under your system? For example, suing someone for violating your “right to privacy” by publicising a photo taken of you in a public place.
I haven’t actually thought about this before, but my instinct is no.
Huh. This universal right to change your mind about commitments seems like the most radical part of your philosophy (although obviously, you’re more tentative about endorsing it) - I noticed you endorsed the right of private individuals to secede from the state.
I am not on a Global Dickishness Reduction Campaign of any kind.
Yeah, you mentioned being a sort of virtue ethicist here … you would vote for (prudent) anti-dickishness laws, that sort of thing?
My original question was, doesn’t that feel like a patch to allow you to act like a consequentialist when it’s clear you have to?
No. It doesn’t feel consequentialist to me at all. It’s a patch, but it’s not a consequentialist-flavored patch.
Isn’t that unfair to people in situations where there is no attacker for you to focus on, where relieving their suffering is not a matter of taking out a convenient target?
Example?
Also, I just realized this, but doesn’t that mean you should be really concerned about any laws punishing things that don’t violate rights, since those criminals haven’t waived their rights under your system? For example, suing someone for violating your “right to privacy” by publicising a photo taken of you in a public place.
I am concerned about that, see elsewhere re: guaranteed exit, consent of the governed, etc. etc. blah blah blah.
you would vote for (prudent) anti-dickishness laws, that sort of thing?
If you specify that something’s prudent I’m pretty likely to vote for it even if it doesn’t affect dickishness in particular. Yay, prudence!
No. It doesn’t feel consequentialist to me at all. It’s a patch, but it’s not a consequentialist-flavored patch.
Yeah, I didn’t understand your position as well when I asked that.
Isn’t that unfair to people in situations where there is no attacker for you to focus on, where relieving their suffering is not a matter of taking out a convenient target?
Example?
How about tragedies of the commons, for example?
Also, I just realized this, but doesn’t that mean you should be really concerned about any laws punishing things that don’t violate rights, since those criminals haven’t waived their rights under your system? For example, suing someone for violating your “right to privacy” by publicising a photo taken of you in a public place.
I am concerned about that, see elsewhere re: guaranteed exit, consent of the governed, etc. etc. blah blah blah.
Most countries do not allow criminals to escape punishment by revoking their consent to be punished.
If you specify that something’s prudent I’m pretty likely to vote for it even if it doesn’t affect dickishness in particular. Yay, prudence!
Hmm, good point. Effective anti-dickishness, laws, then. (Not that I expect you to change your answer.)
Tragedies of the commons are a coordination problem. My system can cover them if there’s some kind of complex ownership or promise-keeping involved, but doesn’t handle implicit commonses.
Most countries do not allow criminals to escape punishment by revoking their consent to be punished.
Yeah, I’m aware.
I would vote for effective anti-dickishness laws all else being equal but might prioritize reduced dickishness below other things if there were tradeoffs involved.
Tragedies of the commons are a coordination problem. My system can cover them if there’s some kind of complex ownership or promise-keeping involved, but doesn’t handle implicit commonses.
Well, fair enough, as long as you’re aware of it.
Most countries do not allow criminals to escape punishment by revoking their consent to be punished.
Yeah, I’m aware.
I would vote for effective anti-dickishness laws all else being equal but might prioritize reduced dickishness below other things if there were tradeoffs involved.
So isn’t there an inconsistency here? Any law punishing something merely dickish, rather than rights violations, is itself a rights violation … right? Or can large-scale prudence outweigh a few minor rights violations?
ETA: That seems reasonable, honestly; even if it does taint the purity of your deontological rules, it only becomes important when determining large-scale policies, which is when you’d want a more precise accounting to shut up and multiply with.
Any law punishing something merely dickish, rather than rights violations, is itself a rights violation … right?
Blah blah guarantee of exit yada yada consent of the governed blah blah I’m really sick now of re-explaining that I am aware of the tensions in my view when it comes to governance and I’m not going to do it anymore.
Alicorn, you just acknowledged that most people being punished are not asked whether they consent to it.
Indeed, attempting to use one’s “guarantee of exit” in these situations is often itself a crime, and one carrying punishments you classify as “rights violations” if I understand you correctly.
That’s sort of why I commented on the potential issues this introduces?
People in the real world do not have guarantee of exit. I’m aware of that. I’ve been over this topic elsewhere in thread more times than I wish to have been.
So … I’m sorry, are you saying you’re actually against these laws, but where rather saying that you would be in favour of them in an ideal world? I appear to have misunderstood you somewhat, so perhaps these repetitions and rephrasing are not in vain.
Thank you for your patience, I know how frustrating it is dealing with inferential gaps and the illusion of clarity better than most :)
It has run out. There is no more patience. It has joined the choir invisible. I said so a couple comments upstream and got downvoted for it; please don’t ask me again.
Well, fair enough. While I’m disappointed not to be able to further improve my understanding of your beliefs, I treasure the LessWrong custom of tapping out of conversations that are no longer productive.
Have a nice day, and may you continue to improve your own understanding of such matters :)
(I think you were actually downvoted for missing the point of my response, by the way. I certainly hope that’s the reason. It would be a great shame if people started downvoting for “tapping out” statements.)
In fact, it’s precisely the opposite. The central feature of rapes we care about is the fact that they are extremely unpleasant, to put it politely. “Consent”, when formalized so that it no longer captures the information we care about, is noncentral.
Or at least, I think it is. In fact, I believe this should also be clear to Alicorn, on reflection (and indeed she has an explanation for why her system doesn’t fall into this trap.)
The central feature of rapes we care about is the fact that they are extremely unpleasant, to put it politely.
No, the central issue is in fact consent (there also also other issues related to sex and marriage but that discussion involves more inferential distance then I’m willing to bridge right now.) One way to see this is that it is still considered rape if the victim was unconscious and thus not capable of experiencing anything, pleasant or otherwise. Also, if someone consented to sex at the time but later decides she didn’t enjoy it, I assume you wouldn’t allow her to retroactively declare it rape.
“No. There’s morality, and then there’s all the many things that are not morality.”
Is this only a linguistic argument about what to call morality? With ,e.g. , virtue ethics claiming that all areas of life are part of morality, since ethics is about human excellence, and your claim that ethics only has to do with obligations and rights? Is there a reason you prefer to limit the domain of morality? Is there a concept you think gets lost when all of life is included in ethics (in virtue ethics or utilitarianism)?
Also, could you clarify the idea of obligations, are then any obligations which don’t emanate from the rights of another person? Are there any obligations which emerge inherently from a person’s humanity and are therefore not waivable?
Is this only a linguistic argument about what to call morality?
You could re-name everything, but if you renamed my deontological rules “fleeb”, I would go on considering fleeb to be ontologically distinct in important ways from things that are not fleeb. I’m pretty sure it’s not just linguistic.
Is there a reason you prefer to limit the domain of morality?
Because there’s already a perfectly good vocabulary for the ontologically distinct non-fleeb things that people are motivated to act towards—“prudence”, “axiology”.
Is there a concept you think gets lost when all of life is included in ethics (in virtue ethics or utilitarianism)?
Unassailable priority. People start looking at very large numbers and nodding to themselves and deciding that these very large numbers mean that if they take a thought experiment as a given they have to commit atrocities.
Also, could you clarify the idea of obligations, are then any obligations which don’t emanate from the rights of another person?
Yes; I have a secondary rule which for lack of better terminology I call “the principle of needless destruction”. It states that you shouldn’t go around wrecking stuff for no reason or insufficient reason, with the exact thresholds as yet undefined.
Are there any obligations which emerge inherently from a person’s humanity and are therefore not waivable?
“Humanity” is the wrong word; I apply my ethics across the board to all persons regardless of species. I’m not sure I understand the question even if I substitute “personhood”.
Lets take truth telling as an example. What is the difference between saying that there is an obligation to tell the truth, or honesty being a virtue or that telling the truth is a terminal value which we must maximize in a consequentialist type equation. Won’t the different frameworks be mutually supportive since obligation will create a terminal value, virtue ethics will show how to incorporate that into your personality and consequentialism will say that we must be prudent in attaining it? Similarly prudence is a virtue which we must be consequentialist to attain and which is useful in living up to our deontological obligations. and justice is a virtue which emanates from the obligation not to steal and not to harm other people and therefore we must consider the consequences of our actions so that we don’t end up in a situation where we will act unjust.
I think I am misunderstanding something in your position, since it seems to me that you don’t seem to disagree with consequentialism in that we need to calculate, but rather in what the terminal values are (with utilitarianism saying utility is the only terminal value and you saying hat there are numerous (such as not lying , not stealing not being destructive etc.))
By obligations which emerge from a person’s personhood which are not waivable, I mean that they emerge from the self and not in relation to another’s rights and therefore can not be waived. To take an example (which I know you do not consider an obligation, but will serve to illustrate the class since many people have this belief) A person has an obligation to live out their life as a result of their personhood and therefore is not allowed to commit suicide since that would be unjust to the self (or nature or god or whatever)
What is the difference between saying that there is an obligation to tell the truth, or honesty being a virtue or that telling the truth is a terminal value which we must maximize in a consequentialist type equation.
The first thing says you must not lie. The second thing says you must not lie because it signifies or causes defects in your character. The third thing says you must not lie unless there is a compensatory amount of something else encouraging you to lie. The systems really don’t fuse this prettily unless you badly misunderstand at least two of them, I’m afraid. (They can cooperate at different levels and human agents can switch around between implementing each of them, but on a theoretical level I don’t think this works.)
I think I am misunderstanding something in your position, since it seems to me that you don’t seem to disagree with consequentialism in that we need to calculate, but rather in what the terminal values are (with utilitarianism saying utility is the only terminal value and you saying hat there are numerous (such as not lying , not stealing not being destructive etc.))
I still don’t know what you mean by “emerge from the self”, but if I understand the class of thing you’re pointing out with the suicide example, I don’t think I have any of those.
Yes I read that post, (Thank you for putting in all this time clarifying your view)
I don’t think you understood my question. since “The third thing says you must not lie unless there is a compensatory amount of something else encouraging you to lie. ” is not viewing ‘not lying’ as a terminal value but rather as an instrumental value. a terminal value would mean that lying is bad not because of what it will lead to (as you explain in that post), but if that is the case, must I act in a situation so as not to be forced to lie. For example, lets say you made a promise to someone not to get fired in your first week at work, and if the boss knows that you cheered for a certain team he will fire you, would you say that you shouldn’t watch that game since you will be forced to either lie to the boss or to break your promise of keeping your job? (Please fix any loopholes you notice, since this is only meant for illustration)
If so it seems like the consequentialist utilitarian is saying that there is a deontological obligation to maximize utility, and therefore you must act to maximize that, whereas you are arguing that there are other deontological values, but you would agree that you should be prudent in achieving your deontological obligations.
(we can put virtue ethics to the side if you want, but won’t your deontological commitments dictate which virtues you must have, for example honesty, or even courage, so as to act in line with your deontological obligations)
That’s a very long paragraph, I’m going to do my best but some things may have been lost in the wall of text.
I understand the difference between terminal and instrumental values, but your conclusion doesn’t follow from this distinction. You can have multiple terminal values. If you terminally value both not-lying and also (to take a silly example) chocolate cake, you will lie to get a large amount of chocolate cake (where the value of “large” is defined somewhere in your utility function). Even if your only terminal value is not-lying, you might find yourself in an odd corner case where you can lie once and thereby avoid lying many times elsewhere. Or if you also value other people not lying, you could lie once to prevent many other people from lying.
a deontological obligation to maximize utility
AAAAAAAAAAAH
you should be prudent in achieving your deontological obligations
It is prudent to be prudent in achieving your deontological obligations. Putting “should” in that sentence flirts with equivocation.
won’t your deontological commitments dictate which virtues you must have, for example honesty, or even courage, so as to act in line with your deontological obligations
I think it’s possible to act completely morally acceptably according to my system while having whopping defects of character that would make any virtue ethicist blush. It might be unlikely, but it’s not impossible.
To make sure I understand you correctly. are these correct conclusions from what you have said?
a. It is permitted (i.e. ethical) to lie to yourself (though probably not prudent)
b. It is permitted (i.e. ethical) to act in a way which will force you to tell a lie tomorrow
c. It is forbidden (i.e. unethical) to lie now to avoid lying tomorrow (no matter how many times or how significant the lie in the future)
d. The differences between the systems will only express themselves in unusual corner cases, but the underlying conceptual structure is very different
I still don’t understand your view of utilitarian consequentialism, if ‘maximizing utility’ isn’t a deontological obligation emanating from personhood or the like, where does it come from?
A, B, and C all look correct as stated, presuming situations really did meet the weird criteria for B and C. I think differences between consequentialism and deontology come up sometimes in regular situations, but less often when humans are running them, since human architecture will drag us all towards a fuzzy intuitionist middle.
I don’t think I understand the last paragraph. Can you rephrase?
Why don’t you view the consequentialist imperative to always seek maximum utility as a deontological rule? If it isn’t deontological where does it come from?
The imperative to maximize utility is utilitarian, not necessarily consequentialist. I know I keep harping on this point, but it’s an important distinction.
Edit: And even more specifically, it’s total utilitarian.
Keep up the good work. Any idea where this conflation might have come from? It’s widespread enough that there might be some commonly misunderstood article in the archives.
I don’t know if it’s anything specific… classic utilitarianism is the most common form of consequentialism espoused on Lesswrong, I think, so it could be as simple as “the most commonly encountered member of a category is assumed to represent the whole category”.
It could also be because utilitarianism was the first (?) form of consequentialism to be put forth by philosophers. Certainly it predates some of the more esoteric forms of consequentialism. I’m pretty sure it’s also got more famous philosophers defending it, by rather a large margin, than any other form of consequentialism.
To me, it looks like consequentialists care exclusively about prudence, which I also care about, and not at all about morality, which I also care about. It looks to me like the thing consequentialists call morality just is prudence and comes from the same places prudence comes from—wanting things, appreciating the nature of cause and effect, etc.
Could you elaborate on what this thing you call “morality” is?
To me, it seems like the “morality” that deontology aspires to be, or to represent / capture, doesn’t actually exist, and thus deontology fails on its own criterion. Consequentialism also fails in this sense, of course, but consequentialism does not actually attempt to work as the sort of “morality” you seem to be referring to.
Doesn’t this deny the existence of rape within marriage? Isn’t it, in fact, the exact argument that was used to oppose laws prohibiting rape within marriage?
Yes, and do you have an reason why this is in fact not a valid conclusion? Or this is an appeal to what the law happens to say today?
I, personally, find this situation morally repugnant. Psychological unity of mankind leads me to hope Alicorn does too. What more justification could you ask?
However, even though signing a contract does not seem to remove the harm of rape, I of course cannot rule out the possibility that I am picturing the situation incorrectly, or that that the benefits would not outweigh the rape. (Yes, Alicorn has stated that they care about harms outside their framework of rights.)
Alicorn, on the other hand, likely already holds the standard opinion on rape (it is bad), and thus would find a certain inconsistency in endorsing a position that was OK with it. So in that sense, yes, the law today is valid evidence that this might be an issue, if one looks at the causal change that led up to it changing.
I, personally, find this situation morally repugnant. Psychological unity of mankind leads me to hope Alicorn does too. What more justification could you ask?
Well, the fact that these laws were only passed very recently suggests that it is you who is out of step with the psychological unity.
So in that sense, yes, the law today is valid evidence that this might be an issue, if one looks at the causal change that led up to it changing.
The context appears to be a moral panic about rape that among other things argues for despising with due process for accused rapists, and that if two drunk people have sex and regret it later this means the man raped the woman. So no, the law today is not in fact valid evidence.
Well, the fact that these laws were only passed very recently suggests that it is you who is out of step with the psychological unity.
I was relying on the framing; obviously I wouldn’t expect people to respond the same way in literally any context. (You’re right, I didn’t make that clear.)
The context appears to be a moral panic about rape that among other things argues for despising with due process for accused rapists, and that if two drunk people have sex and regret it later this means the man raped the woman. So no, the law today is not in fact valid evidence.
Hmm. It is true that rapists are demonized, and this is sometimes extended past edge cases—but obviously, you are yourself relying on the fact that this is obvious nonsense to most people for your rhetorical point.
This seems more akin to similar affects that spring up around other major crimes—not that that makes it rational, of course, or implies that the laws genuinely have greater expected utility than their inverse.
I have no idea how to interpret this even semi-charitably. To me this translates to “I was relying on dark arts”.
It is true that rapists are demonized, and this is sometimes extended past edge cases—but obviously, you are yourself relying on the fact that this is obvious nonsense to most people for your rhetorical point.
I was relying/hoping that you weren’t sufficiently caught up in the panic to no longer recognize this as obvious nonsense. My point that relying on laws that have only been passed in the previous decade, especially given that there’s a moral panic involved, to be highly dubious.
This seems more akin to similar affects that spring up around other major crimes
Yes, similar effects have sprung up around other major crimes in the past. However, I believe that rapists is the moral panic du jour.
I have no idea how to interpret this even semi-charitably.
It’s less likely that someone will ignore facts that have been recently brought to their attention. You’re right, I wasn’t quite sure what word to use there, I may have screwed up.
you are yourself relying on the fact that this is obvious nonsense to most people for your rhetorical point.
I was relying/hoping that you weren’t sufficiently caught up in the panic to no longer recognize this as obvious nonsense.
With respect, have you ever said that to someone and had them respond “Well yeah, sure! Of course women can retroactively make anyone they’ve ever had sex with a rapist.”
I’m sure you’ve seen people endorse equivalent conclusions via deceptive wording, but the general response I would predict from all but a very small core would be “we don’t believe that!”
This seems more akin to similar affects that spring up around other major crimes
Yes, similar effects have sprung up around other major crimes in the past. However, I believe that rapists is the moral panic du jour.
Hmm, perhaps. I would have gone for pedophiles myself (a term already spreading to include all creepily large age gaps, by the way), but this isn’t really a contest.
Psychological what of what? You mean “current societal norms based on a multitude of shifting cultural and biological determinants, subject to change”?
The belief is not universal. The ability to empathise with rape victims is (well, actually, we define our terms so as to exclude psychopaths and the like.) Also, yes, I share certain cultural assumptions and conventions, so I have reason to think Alicorn may respond the same way.
My model predicted Alicorn would react to this specific question about that belief, after living her sort of life, with a reluctance or outright refusal to bite the bullet and endorse rape. Not that every human ever would unilaterally endorse my particular belief about rape.
[Kawoomba—you have no way of knowing this—strenuously objects to my model of human nature, since it predicts human CEV coheres rather well, whereas they believe that ethics are (and should be?) entirely relative and largely determined by one’s circumstances. They like to jump on anything I say that even vaguely implies human morality is somehow universal. There are some quite comprehensive discussions of this point scattered throughout LessWrong.]
My model predicted Alicorn would react to this specific question about that belief, after living her sort of life, with a reluctance or outright refusal to bite the bullet and endorse rape.
Whether the activity in question constitutes “rape” is precisely the question under discussion.
Actually, I don’t doubt that there are many characteristics that apply to a vast majority of humans, thanks e.g. to mirror neurons et al. As such, basing predictions on such common factors is quite valid. For example, predicting that someone who doesn’t eat for extended periods will experience a state called “being hungry”, and will show certain behavioral characteristics associated with that state.
I just dislike the term because it’s typically used not as a descriptor (“many humans show a propensity for X”, in the example: “if you don’t eat for a period of time, you will probably act in accordance to “being hungry”) but (invalidly) as prescriptive (“if you don’t eat for a period of time, you should act in accordance to “being hungry”). Getting an “ought” from an “is”, and all that.
I can predict with reasonably confidence that all participants in the current discussion are currently wearing clothes. Based on the “garmental unity of mankind”. Doesn’t mean they should.
If PUoM means there are shared desires, then the only way you could fail to get the “ought” from the “is”, is by denying that “oughts” have anything to do with desires, surely,
For one, if there are supposedly universally shared desires among a group of agents, and yet you find one agent among them who doesn’t share those, you’ve found a contradiction—those universally shared desires weren’t universally shared, after all.
For two, describing that a majority (or even a supermajority, or a super-duper-overwhelming majority) shares certain desires would be a description, not some majority-tyrannical edict for the outliers to conform to. For example: Stating that a majority of humans share heterosexual desires doesn’t mean that those who don’t somehow should, as well (just to go with the obvious applause-light example which is applicable in this case, it’s easy to come up with arbitrarily many other examples).
Facts about desires coinjoined with with an intuitively appealing Maxim, such as “everyone ought to maximize the satisfaction of everyone’s” desires” can imply oughts.
EDIT: Sorry, turns out you already answered my question. Here are some replacement questions.
You’ve said that you will do nothing, rather than violate a right in order to prevent other rights being violated. Yet you also say that people attempting to violate rights waive their rights not to be stopped. Is this rule designed for the purpose of allowing you to violate people’s rights in order to protect others? That seems unfair to people in situations where there’s no clearly identifiable moustache-twirling villain.
You have also said that people can waive any of their rights—for example, people waive their right not to have sex in order to have sex, and people waive their right not to be murdered in order to commit suicide. Doesn’t this deny the existence of rape within marriage? Isn’t it, in fact, the exact argument that was used to oppose laws prohibiting rape within marriage? This seems worrying. (Obviously, there are other, similar cases that can be constructed, but this one is a major problem.)
Finally, you mention that some actions which do not violate rights are nonetheless “being a dick”, and you will act to prevent and punish these acts in order to discourage them. Doesn’t this imply that there are additional aspects to morality not contained by “rights”? Do you act as a Standard-LessWrong-Consequentialist-Utilitarian™ with regards to Not Being A Dick?
I wish everyone in this thread would be more careful about using the word “right”. If you are trying to violate somebody’s rights, you don’t have “a right not to be stopped”. You have your perfectly normal complement of rights, and some of them are getting in the way of protecting someone else’s rights, so, since you’re the active party, your (contextually relevant) rights are suspended. They remain in effect out of that context (if you are coming at me with a knife I may violently prevent you from being a threat to me; I may not then take your wallet and run off cackling; I may not, ten years later, visit you in prison and inform you that your mother is dead when she is not; etc.).
That’s a good question, but the answer is no. A marriage does not constitute a promise to be permanently sexually available. You could opt to issue standing permission, and I gather this was customary and expected in historical marriages, but you can revoke it at any time; your rights are yours and you may assert them at will. I don’t object to people granting each other standing permission to do things and sticking with it if that’s how they prefer to conduct themselves, but morally speaking the option to refuse remains open.
No. There’s morality, and then there’s all the many things that are not morality. Consequentialists (theoretically, anyway) assign value to everything and add it all up according to the same arithmetic—with whatever epicycles they need not to rob banks and kidnap medical test subjects—but that’s not what I’m doing. Morality limits behavior in certain basic ways. You can be a huge dick and technically not do anything morally wrong. (And people can get back at you all kinds of ways, and not technically do anything morally wrong! It’s not a fun way to live and I don’t really recommend it.)
No. Actually, you could probably call me sort of virtuist with respect to dickishness. I am sort of Standard-LessWrong-Consequentialist-Utilitarian™ with respect to prudence, which is a whole ’nother thing.
Well, sure. I did read your explanation(s). I was assuming the worst-case scenario for the hypothetical, where you have to violate someone’s rights in order to protect others. For example, the classic lying-to-the-nazis-about-the-jews scenario.
Not anymore, no. Because we changed the rules. Because of all the rapes.
I … see, that seems consistent. I assume you can waive the right to abolish an agreement at will, too? That’s the foundation of contract law, but I don’t want to assume.
Indeed, and that’s what I’m asking about. What is this “don’t be a dick” function, and what place does it hold?
Huh. Shame.
… what’s “prudence” in your nomenclature? I haven’t seen the term as you use it.
If you are trying to violate someone’s rights, then your contextually relevant rights are forfeited. For example, the Nazi has forfeited the right not to be lied to.
I’m not sure I understand.
Well, some people are motivated to avoid being dicks, and might value information about how to do it. It’s not very ontologically special.
To me, it looks like consequentialists do prudence exclusively, and name it “morality”, instead of actually doing any morality. Prudence is arranging for things to be how you would like them to be.
Yes, I know. Hence my question:
You see?
Can I waive my right to un-waive a right? For example, if I waive my right not to work for someone, can I also waive my right to change my mind? As in, a standard contract?
I would assume so, but hey, it can’t hurt to ask.
Are you, personally, motivated to discourage dickish behaviour? You are, right? You mentioned you would sue someone for being a dick to you, if it were illegal, even if it was perfectly moral for them to do so.
… as long as “how you would like them to be” doesn’t violate any rights. I think I see what you mean by that.
… ah, and “how you would like things to be” includes “no dickishness”, right?
I do not see; can you start that line of inquiry over completely for me?
I haven’t actually thought about this before, but my instinct is no. Although if you arrange for it to be really hard to communicate a change of mind, someone who went by their last communication with you might not be doing anything wrong, just making a sincere mistake.
I try to minimize it from and around myself. I am not on a Global Dickishness Reduction Campaign of any kind. Maybe I should have said not that I’m not a consequentialist about it, but rather that I’m neither agent- nor recipient-neutral about it? How I would like things to be certainly refers to dickishness.
Sure, I can rephrase.
You’ve said:
You also say that attackers lose their contextually relevant rights, so you can violate their rights in order to defend others.
My original question was, doesn’t that feel like a patch to allow you to act like a consequentialist when it’s clear you have to?
Isn’t that unfair to people in situations where there is no attacker for you to focus on, where relieving their suffering is not a matter of taking out a convenient target?
Also, I just realized this, but doesn’t that mean you should be really concerned about any laws punishing things that don’t violate rights, since those criminals haven’t waived their rights under your system? For example, suing someone for violating your “right to privacy” by publicising a photo taken of you in a public place.
Huh. This universal right to change your mind about commitments seems like the most radical part of your philosophy (although obviously, you’re more tentative about endorsing it) - I noticed you endorsed the right of private individuals to secede from the state.
Yeah, you mentioned being a sort of virtue ethicist here … you would vote for (prudent) anti-dickishness laws, that sort of thing?
No. It doesn’t feel consequentialist to me at all. It’s a patch, but it’s not a consequentialist-flavored patch.
Example?
I am concerned about that, see elsewhere re: guaranteed exit, consent of the governed, etc. etc. blah blah blah.
If you specify that something’s prudent I’m pretty likely to vote for it even if it doesn’t affect dickishness in particular. Yay, prudence!
Yeah, I didn’t understand your position as well when I asked that.
How about tragedies of the commons, for example?
Most countries do not allow criminals to escape punishment by revoking their consent to be punished.
Hmm, good point. Effective anti-dickishness, laws, then. (Not that I expect you to change your answer.)
Tragedies of the commons are a coordination problem. My system can cover them if there’s some kind of complex ownership or promise-keeping involved, but doesn’t handle implicit commonses.
Yeah, I’m aware.
I would vote for effective anti-dickishness laws all else being equal but might prioritize reduced dickishness below other things if there were tradeoffs involved.
Well, fair enough, as long as you’re aware of it.
So isn’t there an inconsistency here? Any law punishing something merely dickish, rather than rights violations, is itself a rights violation … right? Or can large-scale prudence outweigh a few minor rights violations?
ETA: That seems reasonable, honestly; even if it does taint the purity of your deontological rules, it only becomes important when determining large-scale policies, which is when you’d want a more precise accounting to shut up and multiply with.
Blah blah guarantee of exit yada yada consent of the governed blah blah I’m really sick now of re-explaining that I am aware of the tensions in my view when it comes to governance and I’m not going to do it anymore.
Alicorn, you just acknowledged that most people being punished are not asked whether they consent to it.
Indeed, attempting to use one’s “guarantee of exit” in these situations is often itself a crime, and one carrying punishments you classify as “rights violations” if I understand you correctly.
That’s sort of why I commented on the potential issues this introduces?
People in the real world do not have guarantee of exit. I’m aware of that. I’ve been over this topic elsewhere in thread more times than I wish to have been.
So … I’m sorry, are you saying you’re actually against these laws, but where rather saying that you would be in favour of them in an ideal world? I appear to have misunderstood you somewhat, so perhaps these repetitions and rephrasing are not in vain.
Thank you for your patience, I know how frustrating it is dealing with inferential gaps and the illusion of clarity better than most :)
It has run out. There is no more patience. It has joined the choir invisible. I said so a couple comments upstream and got downvoted for it; please don’t ask me again.
Well, fair enough. While I’m disappointed not to be able to further improve my understanding of your beliefs, I treasure the LessWrong custom of tapping out of conversations that are no longer productive.
Have a nice day, and may you continue to improve your own understanding of such matters :)
(I think you were actually downvoted for missing the point of my response, by the way. I certainly hope that’s the reason. It would be a great shame if people started downvoting for “tapping out” statements.)
Non-central fallacy.
No, it’s really not.
In fact, it’s precisely the opposite. The central feature of rapes we care about is the fact that they are extremely unpleasant, to put it politely. “Consent”, when formalized so that it no longer captures the information we care about, is noncentral.
Or at least, I think it is. In fact, I believe this should also be clear to Alicorn, on reflection (and indeed she has an explanation for why her system doesn’t fall into this trap.)
Do you disagree?
No, the central issue is in fact consent (there also also other issues related to sex and marriage but that discussion involves more inferential distance then I’m willing to bridge right now.) One way to see this is that it is still considered rape if the victim was unconscious and thus not capable of experiencing anything, pleasant or otherwise. Also, if someone consented to sex at the time but later decides she didn’t enjoy it, I assume you wouldn’t allow her to retroactively declare it rape.
Utilitarians do this. Consequentialists don’t necessarily.
Not only utilitarians, but von Neumann-Morgenstern rational agents.
Well, sure. That wasn’t meant to be an exhaustive list; I only meant to highlight that consequentialism does not necessarily do this.
But yes, you’re quite right.
“No. There’s morality, and then there’s all the many things that are not morality.”
Is this only a linguistic argument about what to call morality? With ,e.g. , virtue ethics claiming that all areas of life are part of morality, since ethics is about human excellence, and your claim that ethics only has to do with obligations and rights? Is there a reason you prefer to limit the domain of morality? Is there a concept you think gets lost when all of life is included in ethics (in virtue ethics or utilitarianism)?
Also, could you clarify the idea of obligations, are then any obligations which don’t emanate from the rights of another person? Are there any obligations which emerge inherently from a person’s humanity and are therefore not waivable?
You could re-name everything, but if you renamed my deontological rules “fleeb”, I would go on considering fleeb to be ontologically distinct in important ways from things that are not fleeb. I’m pretty sure it’s not just linguistic.
Because there’s already a perfectly good vocabulary for the ontologically distinct non-fleeb things that people are motivated to act towards—“prudence”, “axiology”.
Unassailable priority. People start looking at very large numbers and nodding to themselves and deciding that these very large numbers mean that if they take a thought experiment as a given they have to commit atrocities.
Yes; I have a secondary rule which for lack of better terminology I call “the principle of needless destruction”. It states that you shouldn’t go around wrecking stuff for no reason or insufficient reason, with the exact thresholds as yet undefined.
“Humanity” is the wrong word; I apply my ethics across the board to all persons regardless of species. I’m not sure I understand the question even if I substitute “personhood”.
Lets take truth telling as an example. What is the difference between saying that there is an obligation to tell the truth, or honesty being a virtue or that telling the truth is a terminal value which we must maximize in a consequentialist type equation. Won’t the different frameworks be mutually supportive since obligation will create a terminal value, virtue ethics will show how to incorporate that into your personality and consequentialism will say that we must be prudent in attaining it? Similarly prudence is a virtue which we must be consequentialist to attain and which is useful in living up to our deontological obligations. and justice is a virtue which emanates from the obligation not to steal and not to harm other people and therefore we must consider the consequences of our actions so that we don’t end up in a situation where we will act unjust.
I think I am misunderstanding something in your position, since it seems to me that you don’t seem to disagree with consequentialism in that we need to calculate, but rather in what the terminal values are (with utilitarianism saying utility is the only terminal value and you saying hat there are numerous (such as not lying , not stealing not being destructive etc.))
By obligations which emerge from a person’s personhood which are not waivable, I mean that they emerge from the self and not in relation to another’s rights and therefore can not be waived. To take an example (which I know you do not consider an obligation, but will serve to illustrate the class since many people have this belief) A person has an obligation to live out their life as a result of their personhood and therefore is not allowed to commit suicide since that would be unjust to the self (or nature or god or whatever)
The first thing says you must not lie. The second thing says you must not lie because it signifies or causes defects in your character. The third thing says you must not lie unless there is a compensatory amount of something else encouraging you to lie. The systems really don’t fuse this prettily unless you badly misunderstand at least two of them, I’m afraid. (They can cooperate at different levels and human agents can switch around between implementing each of them, but on a theoretical level I don’t think this works.)
Absolutely not. Did you read Deontology for Consequentialists?
I still don’t know what you mean by “emerge from the self”, but if I understand the class of thing you’re pointing out with the suicide example, I don’t think I have any of those.
Yes I read that post, (Thank you for putting in all this time clarifying your view)
I don’t think you understood my question. since “The third thing says you must not lie unless there is a compensatory amount of something else encouraging you to lie. ” is not viewing ‘not lying’ as a terminal value but rather as an instrumental value. a terminal value would mean that lying is bad not because of what it will lead to (as you explain in that post), but if that is the case, must I act in a situation so as not to be forced to lie. For example, lets say you made a promise to someone not to get fired in your first week at work, and if the boss knows that you cheered for a certain team he will fire you, would you say that you shouldn’t watch that game since you will be forced to either lie to the boss or to break your promise of keeping your job? (Please fix any loopholes you notice, since this is only meant for illustration) If so it seems like the consequentialist utilitarian is saying that there is a deontological obligation to maximize utility, and therefore you must act to maximize that, whereas you are arguing that there are other deontological values, but you would agree that you should be prudent in achieving your deontological obligations. (we can put virtue ethics to the side if you want, but won’t your deontological commitments dictate which virtues you must have, for example honesty, or even courage, so as to act in line with your deontological obligations)
That’s a very long paragraph, I’m going to do my best but some things may have been lost in the wall of text.
I understand the difference between terminal and instrumental values, but your conclusion doesn’t follow from this distinction. You can have multiple terminal values. If you terminally value both not-lying and also (to take a silly example) chocolate cake, you will lie to get a large amount of chocolate cake (where the value of “large” is defined somewhere in your utility function). Even if your only terminal value is not-lying, you might find yourself in an odd corner case where you can lie once and thereby avoid lying many times elsewhere. Or if you also value other people not lying, you could lie once to prevent many other people from lying.
AAAAAAAAAAAH
It is prudent to be prudent in achieving your deontological obligations. Putting “should” in that sentence flirts with equivocation.
I think it’s possible to act completely morally acceptably according to my system while having whopping defects of character that would make any virtue ethicist blush. It might be unlikely, but it’s not impossible.
Thank you, I think I understand this now.
To make sure I understand you correctly. are these correct conclusions from what you have said? a. It is permitted (i.e. ethical) to lie to yourself (though probably not prudent) b. It is permitted (i.e. ethical) to act in a way which will force you to tell a lie tomorrow c. It is forbidden (i.e. unethical) to lie now to avoid lying tomorrow (no matter how many times or how significant the lie in the future) d. The differences between the systems will only express themselves in unusual corner cases, but the underlying conceptual structure is very different
I still don’t understand your view of utilitarian consequentialism, if ‘maximizing utility’ isn’t a deontological obligation emanating from personhood or the like, where does it come from?
A, B, and C all look correct as stated, presuming situations really did meet the weird criteria for B and C. I think differences between consequentialism and deontology come up sometimes in regular situations, but less often when humans are running them, since human architecture will drag us all towards a fuzzy intuitionist middle.
I don’t think I understand the last paragraph. Can you rephrase?
Why don’t you view the consequentialist imperative to always seek maximum utility as a deontological rule? If it isn’t deontological where does it come from?
The imperative to maximize utility is utilitarian, not necessarily consequentialist. I know I keep harping on this point, but it’s an important distinction.
Edit: And even more specifically, it’s total utilitarian.
Keep up the good work. Any idea where this conflation might have come from? It’s widespread enough that there might be some commonly misunderstood article in the archives.
I don’t know if it’s anything specific… classic utilitarianism is the most common form of consequentialism espoused on Lesswrong, I think, so it could be as simple as “the most commonly encountered member of a category is assumed to represent the whole category”.
It could also be because utilitarianism was the first (?) form of consequentialism to be put forth by philosophers. Certainly it predates some of the more esoteric forms of consequentialism. I’m pretty sure it’s also got more famous philosophers defending it, by rather a large margin, than any other form of consequentialism.
It’s VNM consequentialist, which is a broader category then the common meaning of “utilitarian”.
To me, it looks like consequentialists care exclusively about prudence, which I also care about, and not at all about morality, which I also care about. It looks to me like the thing consequentialists call morality just is prudence and comes from the same places prudence comes from—wanting things, appreciating the nature of cause and effect, etc.
Thank you for all of your clarifications, I think I now understand how you are viewing morality.
Could you elaborate on what this thing you call “morality” is?
To me, it seems like the “morality” that deontology aspires to be, or to represent / capture, doesn’t actually exist, and thus deontology fails on its own criterion. Consequentialism also fails in this sense, of course, but consequentialism does not actually attempt to work as the sort of “morality” you seem to be referring to.
What good are their rights to anyone who has starved to death?
Yes, and do you have an reason why this is in fact not a valid conclusion? Or this is an appeal to what the law happens to say today?
I, personally, find this situation morally repugnant. Psychological unity of mankind leads me to hope Alicorn does too. What more justification could you ask?
However, even though signing a contract does not seem to remove the harm of rape, I of course cannot rule out the possibility that I am picturing the situation incorrectly, or that that the benefits would not outweigh the rape. (Yes, Alicorn has stated that they care about harms outside their framework of rights.)
Alicorn, on the other hand, likely already holds the standard opinion on rape (it is bad), and thus would find a certain inconsistency in endorsing a position that was OK with it. So in that sense, yes, the law today is valid evidence that this might be an issue, if one looks at the causal change that led up to it changing.
Well, the fact that these laws were only passed very recently suggests that it is you who is out of step with the psychological unity.
The context appears to be a moral panic about rape that among other things argues for despising with due process for accused rapists, and that if two drunk people have sex and regret it later this means the man raped the woman. So no, the law today is not in fact valid evidence.
I was relying on the framing; obviously I wouldn’t expect people to respond the same way in literally any context. (You’re right, I didn’t make that clear.)
Hmm. It is true that rapists are demonized, and this is sometimes extended past edge cases—but obviously, you are yourself relying on the fact that this is obvious nonsense to most people for your rhetorical point.
This seems more akin to similar affects that spring up around other major crimes—not that that makes it rational, of course, or implies that the laws genuinely have greater expected utility than their inverse.
I have no idea how to interpret this even semi-charitably. To me this translates to “I was relying on dark arts”.
I was relying/hoping that you weren’t sufficiently caught up in the panic to no longer recognize this as obvious nonsense. My point that relying on laws that have only been passed in the previous decade, especially given that there’s a moral panic involved, to be highly dubious.
Yes, similar effects have sprung up around other major crimes in the past. However, I believe that rapists is the moral panic du jour.
It’s less likely that someone will ignore facts that have been recently brought to their attention. You’re right, I wasn’t quite sure what word to use there, I may have screwed up.
With respect, have you ever said that to someone and had them respond “Well yeah, sure! Of course women can retroactively make anyone they’ve ever had sex with a rapist.”
I’m sure you’ve seen people endorse equivalent conclusions via deceptive wording, but the general response I would predict from all but a very small core would be “we don’t believe that!”
Hmm, perhaps. I would have gone for pedophiles myself (a term already spreading to include all creepily large age gaps, by the way), but this isn’t really a contest.
Psychological what of what? You mean “current societal norms based on a multitude of shifting cultural and biological determinants, subject to change”?
No, I don’t, as you’re well aware from our many, many lengthy discussions on the point.
I’ll note that my prediction in this case was correct, no?
Alicorn is part of the same WEIRD cultrue you are, so I don’t see how this is evidence that the belief is universal.
The belief is not universal. The ability to empathise with rape victims is (well, actually, we define our terms so as to exclude psychopaths and the like.) Also, yes, I share certain cultural assumptions and conventions, so I have reason to think Alicorn may respond the same way.
My model predicted Alicorn would react to this specific question about that belief, after living her sort of life, with a reluctance or outright refusal to bite the bullet and endorse rape. Not that every human ever would unilaterally endorse my particular belief about rape.
[Kawoomba—you have no way of knowing this—strenuously objects to my model of human nature, since it predicts human CEV coheres rather well, whereas they believe that ethics are (and should be?) entirely relative and largely determined by one’s circumstances. They like to jump on anything I say that even vaguely implies human morality is somehow universal. There are some quite comprehensive discussions of this point scattered throughout LessWrong.]
Whether the activity in question constitutes “rape” is precisely the question under discussion.
Actually, I don’t doubt that there are many characteristics that apply to a vast majority of humans, thanks e.g. to mirror neurons et al. As such, basing predictions on such common factors is quite valid. For example, predicting that someone who doesn’t eat for extended periods will experience a state called “being hungry”, and will show certain behavioral characteristics associated with that state.
I just dislike the term because it’s typically used not as a descriptor (“many humans show a propensity for X”, in the example: “if you don’t eat for a period of time, you will probably act in accordance to “being hungry”) but (invalidly) as prescriptive (“if you don’t eat for a period of time, you should act in accordance to “being hungry”). Getting an “ought” from an “is”, and all that.
I can predict with reasonably confidence that all participants in the current discussion are currently wearing clothes. Based on the “garmental unity of mankind”. Doesn’t mean they should.
If PUoM means there are shared desires, then the only way you could fail to get the “ought” from the “is”, is by denying that “oughts” have anything to do with desires, surely,
For one, if there are supposedly universally shared desires among a group of agents, and yet you find one agent among them who doesn’t share those, you’ve found a contradiction—those universally shared desires weren’t universally shared, after all.
For two, describing that a majority (or even a supermajority, or a super-duper-overwhelming majority) shares certain desires would be a description, not some majority-tyrannical edict for the outliers to conform to. For example: Stating that a majority of humans share heterosexual desires doesn’t mean that those who don’t somehow should, as well (just to go with the obvious applause-light example which is applicable in this case, it’s easy to come up with arbitrarily many other examples).
And don’t call me Shirley.
Facts about desires coinjoined with with an intuitively appealing Maxim, such as “everyone ought to maximize the satisfaction of everyone’s” desires” can imply oughts.
What is this “intuitively appealing” justification, and why would it be binding for those it doesn’t “intuitively appeal” to? It’s not my intuition.