I’m not sure anyone will see this, given the OP now stands at −15 (not that I have any objection to that). But I think the accusation of straw-manning is not accurate. In this paper, which is referenced in the OP, Bostrom estimates:
Advancing technology (or its enabling factors, such as economic productivity) even by such a tiny amount that it leads to colonization of the local supercluster just one second earlier than would otherwise have happened amounts to bringing about more than 10^29 human lives (or 10^14 human lives if we use the most conservative lower bound) that would not otherwise have existed.
Or as Insanity Wolf might put it:
(I always hear the larger claims of EA, Utilitarianism, and Transhumanism in the voice of Insanity Wolf.)
However, the OP does not really make any arguments against Bostrom. He denies the conclusions but does not follow that back through the argument to the premises and say why he rejects either the validity of the argument or the truth of the premises.
However, the OP does not really make any arguments against Bostrom. He denies the conclusions but does not follow that back through the argument to the premises and say why he rejects either the validity of the argument or the truth of the premises
That only matters if there is independent evidence for the premises. That tends not to be the case with ethics. In particular, there is no way of measuring moral worth, so there is no fact of the matter as to whether it changes with spatial or temporal distance. So its reasonable, and common to judge ethical premises by the recommended actions they lead to, as judged intuitively.
Your quarrel seems to be with the very idea of valuing things. You’re welcome to take that view, but then this entire area of discourse must be a closed book to you. Why respond specifically to my pointing out that Torres does not address the transhumanists’ arguments, but only denies their conclusions?
I’ve already responded. I am not saying that I have no idea how to value things, I am saying that I am not being fooled by pseudo scientific and pseudo mathematical approaches.
The point isnt that I value everything by intuition. The point is that we, all of us, can’t procede without some otherwise unjustified intuitions.
If I am inconsistent and I value consistency, then I have to do something about that. But “consistency is good” is another intuition. As is “moral worth should behave as much like an objective physical property as possible”.
You are probably not accustomed to thinking of things like consistency as subjective intuition , because they seem objective and science-y. But what else are you basing them on? And what are you basing that on?
You seem to be using “intuition” as a way to avoid discussion. Just go up a meta-level and bark “you just used intuition!” at your interlocutor. No further discussion is possible along this path.
No,I am using “intuition” the way philosophers use it, to explain an issue that most philosophers agree (!) exists. I always can say “that depends on an intuition” because it always does. And that’s what you should be worrying about—the nakedness of the emperor, not the pointing.
If you want to discuss how this doesn’t matter , or how you have a solution , fine.
I’m not sure anyone will see this, given the OP now stands at −15 (not that I have any objection to that). But I think the accusation of straw-manning is not accurate. In this paper, which is referenced in the OP, Bostrom estimates:
Or as Insanity Wolf might put it:
(I always hear the larger claims of EA, Utilitarianism, and Transhumanism in the voice of Insanity Wolf.)
However, the OP does not really make any arguments against Bostrom. He denies the conclusions but does not follow that back through the argument to the premises and say why he rejects either the validity of the argument or the truth of the premises.
That only matters if there is independent evidence for the premises. That tends not to be the case with ethics. In particular, there is no way of measuring moral worth, so there is no fact of the matter as to whether it changes with spatial or temporal distance. So its reasonable, and common to judge ethical premises by the recommended actions they lead to, as judged intuitively.
What is this intuition by which you would judge the competing claims of Bostrom and Torres, but a “way of measuring moral worth”?
It’s not an objective, scientific measurement. There are no worth-ometers.
For me or for you.
What is this this intuition by which you would competing claims of Bostrom and Torres?
Your quarrel seems to be with the very idea of valuing things. You’re welcome to take that view, but then this entire area of discourse must be a closed book to you. Why respond specifically to my pointing out that Torres does not address the transhumanists’ arguments, but only denies their conclusions?
I’ve already responded. I am not saying that I have no idea how to value things, I am saying that I am not being fooled by pseudo scientific and pseudo mathematical approaches.
How do you value things? If solely by intuition, what do you do when intuitions conflict with each other?
The point isnt that I value everything by intuition. The point is that we, all of us, can’t procede without some otherwise unjustified intuitions.
If I am inconsistent and I value consistency, then I have to do something about that. But “consistency is good” is another intuition. As is “moral worth should behave as much like an objective physical property as possible”.
You are probably not accustomed to thinking of things like consistency as subjective intuition , because they seem objective and science-y. But what else are you basing them on? And what are you basing that on?
You seem to be using “intuition” as a way to avoid discussion. Just go up a meta-level and bark “you just used intuition!” at your interlocutor. No further discussion is possible along this path.
No,I am using “intuition” the way philosophers use it, to explain an issue that most philosophers agree (!) exists. I always can say “that depends on an intuition” because it always does. And that’s what you should be worrying about—the nakedness of the emperor, not the pointing.
If you want to discuss how this doesn’t matter , or how you have a solution , fine.