Which raises the question: do you actually know anyone who considers small children worthless, or are you just bracketing here?
I mean, I know lots of people who consider small children (and various precursors to small children) to have less value than other things they value… indeed, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t, although there are certainly disagreements about what clears that bar and what doesn’t. But that needn’t involve walking off any cliffs… that’s just what it means to live in a world where we sometimes have to choose among things of value.
Well, worthless is a mild exaggeration, but Eliezer has argued that eating babies is justified if they’re young enough. Infanticide (or “post-natal abortion”) is approved of by a small but real minority. I have yet to encounter anyone who thinks toddlers are equivalent to animals (who doesn’t use this to argue for animals’ rights) but I assume they exist as a minority of a minority. But if they can talk, most people are convinced. (This does not apply to sign language, for some reason.)
What I get from your answer is that you believe there exist people who support killing children if they’re young enough, though you haven’t talked to any of them about the parameters of that support, and you infer from that position that they value young children less than they ought to, which is what you meant by considering young children “worthless” in the first place.
That is, as I currently understand you. your original sentiment can be rephrased “If you value small children less than you ought to, you have followed simplicity off a cliff” and you believe Eliezer values small children less than he ought to, or at the very least has made arguments from which one could infer that, and that other unnamed people do too..
There are some moral theories that sound simple and reasonable in the abstract (“maximize happiness”, for example) but in reality do not encompass the full range of human value. There are two possible responses to this; you can either examine the evidence and conclude you missed something, or you can decide your theory is self-evidently true and everyone else must be biased, and bite the bullet
Of course, everyone sometimes is biased, and some bullets should be bitten. But when you start advocating forcible wireheading (or eating babies) you should at least reexamine the evidence.
Eliezer may be right. But I predict he hasn’t examined binary personhood … ever? Recently, at any rate.
With respect to Eliezer in particular, it would greatly surprise me if your disagreement with him was actually about complexity of value as you seem to suggest here, or about unexamined notions of binary personhood. That said, my preference is to let you have your argument with him with him, rather than trying to have your argument with him with me.
With respect to your general point, I’m all in favor of re-examining evidence when it leads me to unexpected conclusions. But as you say, some bullets should be bitten… sometimes it turns out that habitual beliefs are unjustified, and re-examining evidence leads me to reject them with greater confidence.
For my own part, I probably value human infants less than you think I ought to… though it’s hard to be sure, since I’m not exactly sure where you draw the line.
Just to put a line in the sand for calibration: for at least 99.99999% of children aged 2 years or younger, and a randomly chosen adult, I would easily endorse killing any 10 of the former to save the latter (probably larger numbers as well, but with more difficulty), and I don’t think I’ve walked off any cliffs in the process.
Oh, I daresay I value infants more than most people think I ought to. That’s the problem with consistency :(
Still, I think it’s fair to say that binary personhood has a problem with the fact that most people seem to care about things on a sliding scale, and it’s probably not just bias.
Anyway, seems like this point has been quite thoughrily clarified...
Fair enough.
Which raises the question: do you actually know anyone who considers small children worthless, or are you just bracketing here?
I mean, I know lots of people who consider small children (and various precursors to small children) to have less value than other things they value… indeed, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t, although there are certainly disagreements about what clears that bar and what doesn’t. But that needn’t involve walking off any cliffs… that’s just what it means to live in a world where we sometimes have to choose among things of value.
Well, worthless is a mild exaggeration, but Eliezer has argued that eating babies is justified if they’re young enough. Infanticide (or “post-natal abortion”) is approved of by a small but real minority. I have yet to encounter anyone who thinks toddlers are equivalent to animals (who doesn’t use this to argue for animals’ rights) but I assume they exist as a minority of a minority. But if they can talk, most people are convinced. (This does not apply to sign language, for some reason.)
Does that answer your question?
I’m not sure.
What I get from your answer is that you believe there exist people who support killing children if they’re young enough, though you haven’t talked to any of them about the parameters of that support, and you infer from that position that they value young children less than they ought to, which is what you meant by considering young children “worthless” in the first place.
That is, as I currently understand you. your original sentiment can be rephrased “If you value small children less than you ought to, you have followed simplicity off a cliff” and you believe Eliezer values small children less than he ought to, or at the very least has made arguments from which one could infer that, and that other unnamed people do too..
Have I understood you correctly?
Pretty much.
There are some moral theories that sound simple and reasonable in the abstract (“maximize happiness”, for example) but in reality do not encompass the full range of human value. There are two possible responses to this; you can either examine the evidence and conclude you missed something, or you can decide your theory is self-evidently true and everyone else must be biased, and bite the bullet
Of course, everyone sometimes is biased, and some bullets should be bitten. But when you start advocating forcible wireheading (or eating babies) you should at least reexamine the evidence.
Eliezer may be right. But I predict he hasn’t examined binary personhood … ever? Recently, at any rate.
OK.
With respect to Eliezer in particular, it would greatly surprise me if your disagreement with him was actually about complexity of value as you seem to suggest here, or about unexamined notions of binary personhood. That said, my preference is to let you have your argument with him with him, rather than trying to have your argument with him with me.
With respect to your general point, I’m all in favor of re-examining evidence when it leads me to unexpected conclusions. But as you say, some bullets should be bitten… sometimes it turns out that habitual beliefs are unjustified, and re-examining evidence leads me to reject them with greater confidence.
For my own part, I probably value human infants less than you think I ought to… though it’s hard to be sure, since I’m not exactly sure where you draw the line.
Just to put a line in the sand for calibration: for at least 99.99999% of children aged 2 years or younger, and a randomly chosen adult, I would easily endorse killing any 10 of the former to save the latter (probably larger numbers as well, but with more difficulty), and I don’t think I’ve walked off any cliffs in the process.
Oh, I daresay I value infants more than most people think I ought to. That’s the problem with consistency :(
Still, I think it’s fair to say that binary personhood has a problem with the fact that most people seem to care about things on a sliding scale, and it’s probably not just bias.
Anyway, seems like this point has been quite thoughrily clarified...