Most people value having a tidy sum in a bank account. But (usually) they don’t value it for itself, they value it because it allows them to get other stuff which they like. Money in a bank is NOT a terminal value.
Most people value not being in pain. They (usually) don’t value it because not being in pain allows them something, they value it for itself, because lack of pain IS a terminal value.
Where does it say that? Since when could an axiom be incomprehensible? By “axiom” do you mean what philosophers call intuition?
It has nothing to do with comprehensibility.
Most people value having a tidy sum in a bank account. But (usually) they don’t value it for itself, they value it because it allows them to get other stuff which they like. Money in a bank is NOT a terminal value.
Most people value not being in pain. They (usually) don’t value it because not being in pain allows them something, they value it for itself, because lack of pain IS a terminal value.
Wild you kill million to obtain analgesia?
Here it is in full strength Lesswrongelse: the fact that every node in the graph leads to another does not mean the graph is acyclic.
The graph of this conversation just went cyclic: please goto here.
Running in circles is not a successful means of evasion.