But Yudkowsky does seem to think that we should violate our moral instincts—we should push the fat man in front of the tram, we should be more willing to pay to save 20,000 birds than to save 200. Our position on whether it’s better to save 400 people or take a chance of saving 500 people should be consistent with our position on whether it’s better to kill 100 people or take a chance of killing 500 people. We should sell all our possessions except the bare minimum we need to live and give the rest to efficient charity.
If morality is simply our desire to do what feels Right, how can it ever justify doing something that feels Wrong?
But Yudkowsky does seem to think that… We should sell all our possessions except the bare minimum we need to live and give the rest to efficient charity.
Yudkowsky does not advocate this. Nor does he practice it. In fact he does the opposite—efficient charity gives him money to have more than the bare minimum needed to live (and this does not seem unwise to me).
But Yudkowsky does seem to think that we should violate our moral instincts—we should push the fat man in front of the tram, we should be more willing to pay to save 20,000 birds than to save 200. Our position on whether it’s better to save 400 people or take a chance of saving 500 people should be consistent with our position on whether it’s better to kill 100 people or take a chance of killing 500 people. We should sell all our possessions except the bare minimum we need to live and give the rest to efficient charity.
If morality is simply our desire to do what feels Right, how can it ever justify doing something that feels Wrong?
Yudkowsky does not advocate this. Nor does he practice it. In fact he does the opposite—efficient charity gives him money to have more than the bare minimum needed to live (and this does not seem unwise to me).
This is a very good summary of the point I’m trying to make, though not the argument for making it. Better than mine for what it does.