I decided to post it here because it’s just so incredibly stupid and naively evil, but also because it’s using LW-ish language in a piece on how to—in essence—thoroughly corrupt the libertarian cause. Thought y’all would enjoy it.
Standardrejoinders. Furthermore: even if Brennan is ignorant of the classical liberal value of republicanism, why can’t he use his own libertarian philosophy to unfuck himself? How is lying like this ethical under it? Why does he discuss the benefits of such crude, object-level deception openly, on a moderately well read blog, with potential for blowback? By VALIS, this is a perfect example of how much some apparently intelligent people could, indeed, benefit from reading LW!
Well I am apparently too stupid to understand why the quoted article is stupid or evil, not to mention incredibly stupid or naively evil.
In any consequentialist theory combined with some knowledge of the actual world as it functions that we live in I don’t see how you can escape the conclusion that a politician running has a right to lie to voters. An essential conclusion from observing reality is that politicians lie to voters. Upon examination, it is hard NOT to conclude that politicians who don’t lie enough don’t get elected. If we are consequentialist, then either 1) elected politicians do create consequences and so a politician who will create good consequences had best lie “the right amount” to get elected or 2) elected politicians do not create consequences in which case it is consequentially neutral whether a politician lies, and therefore morally neutral.
If you prefer a non-consequentialist or even anti-consequentialist moral system, then bully for you, it is wrong (within your system) for politicians to lie to voters, but that conclusion is inconsequential, except perhaps for a very small number of people, presumably the politician who’s soul is saved or who’s virtue is kept intact by his pyrrhic act of telling the truth.
A lot of the superficial evilness and stupidity is softened by the follow-up post, where in reply to the objection that politicians uniformly following this principle would result in a much worse situation, he says:
The fact that most people would botch applying a theory does not show that the theory is wrong. So, for instance, suppose—as is often argued—that most people would misapply utilitarian moral standards. Perhaps applying utilitarianism is too hard for the common person. Even if so, this does not invalidate utilitarianism. As David Brink notes, utilitarian moral theory means to provide a criterion of right, not a method for making decisions.
So maybe he just meant that in some situations the “objectively right” action is to lie to voters, without actually recommending that politicians go out and do it (just as most utilitarians would not recommend that people try to always act like strict naive utilitarians).
So maybe he just meant that in some situations the “objectively right” action is to lie to voters, without actually recommending that politicians go out and do it
I’m confused. So would he recommend that the politicians do the “objectively wrong” thing?
All of that looks a lot like incoherence, unwillingness to accept the implications of stated beliefs, and general handwaving.
The fact that most people would botch applying a theory does not show that the theory is wrong.
So the problem is that the politicians can’t lie well enough?? X-D
So the problem is that the politicians can’t lie well enough??
No, that’s not what he means. Quoting from the post (which I apologize for not linking to before):
Many of the commenters said that my position can’t be right because people will misapply it in dangerous ways. They are right that politicians will misapply it in dangerous ways. In fact, I bet some politicians who wrongfully lie do so because they think that they mistakenly fall under a murderer at the door-type case. But that doesn’t mean that the principle is wrong. It just means that people tend to mess up the application.
So, to recap. Brennan says “lying to voters is the right thing when good results from it”. His critics say, very reasonably, that since politicians and humans in general are biased in their own favor in manifold ways, every politician would surely think that good would result from their lies, so if everyone followed his advice everyone would lie all the time, with disastrous consequences. Brennan replies that this doesn’t mean that “lying is right when good results from it” is false; it just means that due to human fallibilities a better general outcome would be achieved if people didn’t try to do the right thing in this situation but followed the simpler rule of never lying.
My interpretation is that therefore in the post Multiheaded linked to Brennan was not, despite appearances, making a case that actually existing politicians should actually go ahead and lie, but rather making an ivory-tower philosophical point that sometimes them lying would be “the right thing to do” in the abstract sense.
So would he recommend that the politicians do the “objectively wrong” thing?
For a wrong outcome B, you can usually imagine even worse outcome C.
In a situation with perfect information, it is better to choose a right outcome A instead of a wrong outcome B. But in a situation with an imperfect information, choosing B may be preferable to having A with some small probability p, and C with probability 1-p.
The lesson about the ethical injuctions seems to me that we should be aware that in some political contexts the value of p is extremely low, and yet because of obvious evolutionary pressures, we have a bias to believe that p is actually very large. Therefore we should recognize such situations with a large p (because that’s how it feels from inside), realize the bias, and apply a sufficiently strong correction, which usually means to stop.
So the problem is that the politicians can’t lie well enough??
Actually… yes.
More precisely, I would expect politicians to be good at lying for the goal of getting more personal power, because that’s what the evolution has optimized humans for; and the politicians are here the experts among humans.
But I expect all humans, including politicians, to fail at maximizing utility when defined otherwise.
Many internet libertarians aren’t very consequentialist, though. And really, just the basic application of rule-utilitarianism would expose many, many problems with that post. But really, though: while the “Non-Aggression Principle” appears just laughably unworkable to me… given that many libertarians do subscribe to it, is lying to voters not an act of aggression?
Depends on your point of view, of course, but I don’t think the bleeding-heart libertarians (aka liberaltarians) are actually libertarians. In any case, it’s likely that the guy didn’t spend too much time thinking it through. But so what? You know the appropriate xkcd cartoon, I assume...
Given that the guy is a professional philosopher I doubt ignorance is a good explanation. It’s probably a case of someone wanting to be to contrarian for his own good. Or at least the good of his cause. Given that he wrote a book to argue that most people shouldn’t vote, he might simply troll for academic controversy to get recognition and citations.
Evil Stupid Thing Alert!
“The Duty to Lie to Stupid Voters”—yes, really
I decided to post it here because it’s just so incredibly stupid and naively evil, but also because it’s using LW-ish language in a piece on how to—in essence—thoroughly corrupt the libertarian cause. Thought y’all would enjoy it.
Standard rejoinders. Furthermore: even if Brennan is ignorant of the classical liberal value of republicanism, why can’t he use his own libertarian philosophy to unfuck himself? How is lying like this ethical under it? Why does he discuss the benefits of such crude, object-level deception openly, on a moderately well read blog, with potential for blowback? By VALIS, this is a perfect example of how much some apparently intelligent people could, indeed, benefit from reading LW!
I am down voting this because:
a) I don’t want to see people pushing politics on LW in any form.
b) It is entirely nonobvious to me that this is either evil or stupid.
Consider two concepts: “credibility” and “multiple rounds”. That’s what makes it stupid.
Consider another idea: “I don’t care about multiple rounds because after a single win I can do enough”. That’s what makes it evil.
Well I am apparently too stupid to understand why the quoted article is stupid or evil, not to mention incredibly stupid or naively evil.
In any consequentialist theory combined with some knowledge of the actual world as it functions that we live in I don’t see how you can escape the conclusion that a politician running has a right to lie to voters. An essential conclusion from observing reality is that politicians lie to voters. Upon examination, it is hard NOT to conclude that politicians who don’t lie enough don’t get elected. If we are consequentialist, then either 1) elected politicians do create consequences and so a politician who will create good consequences had best lie “the right amount” to get elected or 2) elected politicians do not create consequences in which case it is consequentially neutral whether a politician lies, and therefore morally neutral.
If you prefer a non-consequentialist or even anti-consequentialist moral system, then bully for you, it is wrong (within your system) for politicians to lie to voters, but that conclusion is inconsequential, except perhaps for a very small number of people, presumably the politician who’s soul is saved or who’s virtue is kept intact by his pyrrhic act of telling the truth.
A lot of the superficial evilness and stupidity is softened by the follow-up post, where in reply to the objection that politicians uniformly following this principle would result in a much worse situation, he says:
So maybe he just meant that in some situations the “objectively right” action is to lie to voters, without actually recommending that politicians go out and do it (just as most utilitarians would not recommend that people try to always act like strict naive utilitarians).
I’m confused. So would he recommend that the politicians do the “objectively wrong” thing?
All of that looks a lot like incoherence, unwillingness to accept the implications of stated beliefs, and general handwaving.
So the problem is that the politicians can’t lie well enough?? X-D
No, that’s not what he means. Quoting from the post (which I apologize for not linking to before):
So, to recap. Brennan says “lying to voters is the right thing when good results from it”. His critics say, very reasonably, that since politicians and humans in general are biased in their own favor in manifold ways, every politician would surely think that good would result from their lies, so if everyone followed his advice everyone would lie all the time, with disastrous consequences. Brennan replies that this doesn’t mean that “lying is right when good results from it” is false; it just means that due to human fallibilities a better general outcome would be achieved if people didn’t try to do the right thing in this situation but followed the simpler rule of never lying.
My interpretation is that therefore in the post Multiheaded linked to Brennan was not, despite appearances, making a case that actually existing politicians should actually go ahead and lie, but rather making an ivory-tower philosophical point that sometimes them lying would be “the right thing to do” in the abstract sense.
So, is there any insight here other than restating the standard consequentialist position that “doing X is right when it leads to good outcomes”?
Especially given how Brennan backpedals into deontological ethics once we start talking about the real world?
For a wrong outcome B, you can usually imagine even worse outcome C.
In a situation with perfect information, it is better to choose a right outcome A instead of a wrong outcome B. But in a situation with an imperfect information, choosing B may be preferable to having A with some small probability p, and C with probability 1-p.
The lesson about the ethical injuctions seems to me that we should be aware that in some political contexts the value of p is extremely low, and yet because of obvious evolutionary pressures, we have a bias to believe that p is actually very large. Therefore we should recognize such situations with a large p (because that’s how it feels from inside), realize the bias, and apply a sufficiently strong correction, which usually means to stop.
Actually… yes.
More precisely, I would expect politicians to be good at lying for the goal of getting more personal power, because that’s what the evolution has optimized humans for; and the politicians are here the experts among humans.
But I expect all humans, including politicians, to fail at maximizing utility when defined otherwise.
Consequentialism has no problems with lying at all.
Many internet libertarians aren’t very consequentialist, though. And really, just the basic application of rule-utilitarianism would expose many, many problems with that post. But really, though: while the “Non-Aggression Principle” appears just laughably unworkable to me… given that many libertarians do subscribe to it, is lying to voters not an act of aggression?
Depends on your point of view, of course, but I don’t think the bleeding-heart libertarians (aka liberaltarians) are actually libertarians. In any case, it’s likely that the guy didn’t spend too much time thinking it through. But so what? You know the appropriate xkcd cartoon, I assume...
Given that the guy is a professional philosopher I doubt ignorance is a good explanation. It’s probably a case of someone wanting to be to contrarian for his own good. Or at least the good of his cause. Given that he wrote a book to argue that most people shouldn’t vote, he might simply troll for academic controversy to get recognition and citations.