Suppose now that there were two such magic [invisibility] rings [of Gyges], and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men.
Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust.
For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another’s, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another’s faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.
There are analogues of the classic biases in our own utility functions, it is a blind spot to hold our preferences as we perceive them to be sacrosanct. Just as we can be mistaken about the correct solution to Monty Hall, so can we be mistaken about our own values. It’s a treasure trove for rational self-analysis.
We have an easy enough time of figuring out how a religious belief is blatantly ridiculous because we find some claim it makes that’s contrary to the evidence. But say someone takes out all such obviously false claims, or take a patriot, someone who professes to just deeply care about his country, or his bat mitzvah, or her white wedding, or what have you. Even then, there is more cognitive exploration to be had there than just shrugging and saying “can’t argue with his/her utility function”.
The quote does some work in that direction. From a certain point of view, altruism is the last, most persistent bias. Far from “there is a light in the world, and we are it”—rather the final glowing ember on the bonfire of irrationality. But that’s a long post in and of itself. Shrug, if you don’t see it as a rationality quote, just downvote it.
I truly am torn on the matter. LW has caused a good amount of self-modification away from that position, not in the sense of diminishing the arguments’ credence, but in the sense of “so what, that’s not the belief I want to hold” (which, while generally quite dangerous, may be necessary with a few select “holy belief cows”)*.
That personal information notwithstanding, I don’t think we should only present arguments supporting positions we are convinced of. That—given a somewhat homogeneous group composition—would amount to an echo chamber, and in any case knock out Aumann’s agreement theorem.
* Ironic, is it not? Analogous to “shut up and do the impossible” a case of instrumental versus epistemic rationality.
Glaucon, in Plato’s Republic
Why is this a rationality quote?
Maybe for the bit about signalling in the last paragraph...? Just guessing here; perhaps Kawoomba will fill us in.
There are analogues of the classic biases in our own utility functions, it is a blind spot to hold our preferences as we perceive them to be sacrosanct. Just as we can be mistaken about the correct solution to Monty Hall, so can we be mistaken about our own values. It’s a treasure trove for rational self-analysis.
We have an easy enough time of figuring out how a religious belief is blatantly ridiculous because we find some claim it makes that’s contrary to the evidence. But say someone takes out all such obviously false claims, or take a patriot, someone who professes to just deeply care about his country, or his bat mitzvah, or her white wedding, or what have you. Even then, there is more cognitive exploration to be had there than just shrugging and saying “can’t argue with his/her utility function”.
The quote does some work in that direction. From a certain point of view, altruism is the last, most persistent bias. Far from “there is a light in the world, and we are it”—rather the final glowing ember on the bonfire of irrationality. But that’s a long post in and of itself. Shrug, if you don’t see it as a rationality quote, just downvote it.
Whose? You seem reluctant to stand by the nihilism you are preaching.
I truly am torn on the matter. LW has caused a good amount of self-modification away from that position, not in the sense of diminishing the arguments’ credence, but in the sense of “so what, that’s not the belief I want to hold” (which, while generally quite dangerous, may be necessary with a few select “holy belief cows”)*.
That personal information notwithstanding, I don’t think we should only present arguments supporting positions we are convinced of. That—given a somewhat homogeneous group composition—would amount to an echo chamber, and in any case knock out Aumann’s agreement theorem.
* Ironic, is it not? Analogous to “shut up and do the impossible” a case of instrumental versus epistemic rationality.