I don’t agree on the size of the bias. I think most people in lesswrong are biased the other way.
Also it sort of does justify the behavior? Consider idk ‘should we race to achieve AI dominance before China does’. Well I think starting such an arms race is bad behavior. But if I thought China was almost certainly actually going to secretly race ahead, then enslave or kill us, it would be justify the race. Treating people as worse than they are is a common and serious form of bad behavior.
In general if you “defect” because you thought the other party would that is quite sketchy. But what if proof comes out they really were about to defect on you? In that case I cannot really blame you. The behavior is only bad if the other party was likely to not defect!
There are other somewhat more speculative cases. If someone actually would rob you if your positions were switched it does seem less wrong for you to rob them? Idk how strong this justification is but it seems non trivial. In my opinion there isn’t really a good practical ethics approach except “avoid interacting with people you consider to be of low character”
In general if you “defect” because you thought the other party would that is quite sketchy. But what if proof comes out they really were about to defect on you?
By the way, if we consider game theory and logic to be any relevant, then there’s a corollary of Löb’s Theorem: if you defect given proof that counterparty will defect, and another party will defect given proof that you will, then you both will, logically, defect against each other, with no choice in the matter. (And if you additionally declare that you cooperate given proof that partner will cooperate, you’ve just declared a logical contradiction.)
For packing this result into a “wise” phrase, I’d use words: Good is not a universally valid response to Evil. Evil is not a universally valid response to Evil either. Seek that which will bring about a Good equilibrium.
I don’t agree on the size of the bias. I think most people in lesswrong are biased the other way.
Also it sort of does justify the behavior? Consider idk ‘should we race to achieve AI dominance before China does’. Well I think starting such an arms race is bad behavior. But if I thought China was almost certainly actually going to secretly race ahead, then enslave or kill us, it would be justify the race. Treating people as worse than they are is a common and serious form of bad behavior.
In general if you “defect” because you thought the other party would that is quite sketchy. But what if proof comes out they really were about to defect on you? In that case I cannot really blame you. The behavior is only bad if the other party was likely to not defect!
There are other somewhat more speculative cases. If someone actually would rob you if your positions were switched it does seem less wrong for you to rob them? Idk how strong this justification is but it seems non trivial. In my opinion there isn’t really a good practical ethics approach except “avoid interacting with people you consider to be of low character”
By the way, if we consider game theory and logic to be any relevant, then there’s a corollary of Löb’s Theorem: if you defect given proof that counterparty will defect, and another party will defect given proof that you will, then you both will, logically, defect against each other, with no choice in the matter. (And if you additionally declare that you cooperate given proof that partner will cooperate, you’ve just declared a logical contradiction.)
For packing this result into a “wise” phrase, I’d use words:
Good is not a universally valid response to Evil. Evil is not a universally valid response to Evil either. Seek that which will bring about a Good equilibrium.