She’s not wrong; head-only is weird. The trick is realizing that weird actions can be normatively correct; not all first-stage moral intuitions are accurate.
I think #4 could be argued sanely. For example, here’s one: ‘puppies fill the child-sized hole in your heart, freeing lots of money for SIAI and cryonics’
(Since the lifetime cost of a dog is somewhere below 10k, while for a middle-class kid raised to college and beyond is… >200k? In that range. 190k just about pays for a neuro-suspension even without investment/insurance.)
1), 2), and 3) seem ok, I don’t think you could definitively argue the point behind 4) though. Situations just vary too much.
Puppies are human universal value, but it’s a contrarian claim that you have to study LW real hard to obtain level 3 understanding of.
I’ve been arguing for going with the “head only” option, but she thinks it’s somehow weird.
She’s not wrong; head-only is weird. The trick is realizing that weird actions can be normatively correct; not all first-stage moral intuitions are accurate.
I think #4 could be argued sanely. For example, here’s one: ‘puppies fill the child-sized hole in your heart, freeing lots of money for SIAI and cryonics’
(Since the lifetime cost of a dog is somewhere below 10k, while for a middle-class kid raised to college and beyond is… >200k? In that range. 190k just about pays for a neuro-suspension even without investment/insurance.)