Everything affects everything else. Butterfly wings, and all that.
Actions don’t come with minus signs on them. A person may evaluate an action according to his values as negative. Negative, relative to what? Simply translating all values by a constant can change whether a particular value is negative or not. And if negative is relative to a maximal, as defined by the person, then everything deviating from his preferences is a negative externality. If he is committed to punishing those who deviate from his maximal, and punishing those who fail to likewise punish, he’s committed to an endless war until he’s converted the entire world to his ideology. Punish, punish, punish, until it’s One Mind, One Will.
I find such people a social menace.
That’s the implication of a punishing utilitarian, which you seemed to be from your earlier comments. Your comment below seems to imply otherwise.
Now you’re ok with the PUA and his lady friend living their PUA lives, as long as they don’t significantly affect other people’s lives. So am I. Woman who aren’t attracted to men who employ PUA tactics won’t be. I presume the PUA folks at least attempt to avoid such women, and if they don’t they should. Sounds about the best we can do—there is some necessary friction to the discovery process of who matches who.
But it’s inconvenient for you as a third party to the mating dance? Maybe so. But most people put quite a high priority on finding a suitable mate. Do you find your inconvenience relatively “significant”?
Everything affects everything else. Butterfly wings, and all that.
I’m not sure I understood this. You seem to be suggesting that the whole enterprise of taking action based on expected-value calculations is to be rejected because of the existence of chaotic uncertainty. If so, I simply disagree. Sure, butterfly wings might cause hurricanes, but that’s not the way to bet. If I’ve misunderstood you, I apologize. If you are willing to try to express yourself differently, I’ll try again to understand
Actions don’t come with minus signs on them.
That’s true.
A person may evaluate an action according to his values as negative. Negative, relative to what? Simply translating all values by a constant can change whether a particular value is negative or not. And if negative is relative to a maximal, as defined by the person, then everything deviating from his preferences is a negative externality.
Here, again, I’m not sure I follow you.
I perform an expected value calculation on an act, and conclude the expected value of the act is negative based on my values. Another way of saying that is that the expected value of the world after that act is performed is lower than its expected value if that act is not performed.
If he is committed to punishing those who deviate from his maximal, and punishing those who fail to likewise punish, he’s committed to an endless war until he’s converted the entire world to his ideology
Sure. Punishing everyone who behaves imperfectly until I’ve converted the entire world is a really bad strategy; it just doesn’t work, as has been demonstrated many many times. 100% agreed.
I find such people a social menace.
Sure, I agree.
That’s the implication of a punishing utilitarian, which you seemed to be from your earlier comments.
Did I? My goodness. Well, I’m glad we cleared up that misunderstanding.
Now you’re ok with the PUA and his lady friend living their PUA lives, as long as they don’t significantly affect other people’s lives.
Not only that, they can even significantly affect other people’s lives, as long as they don’t leave everyone involved worse off (on net, aggregated over agents). Which is why I started out by talking about checking for that condition in the first place. Which is why I disagree with the implications of “Now” in your sentence.
So am I.
Great. glad we agree.
But it’s inconvenient for you as a third party to the mating dance? Maybe so. But most people put quite a high priority on finding a suitable mate. Do you find your inconvenience relatively “significant”?
Nope, not for any ordinary understanding of “inconvenient.”. And, consequently, in cases where the expected value of the “mating dance” is that two people find suitable mates and I am inconvenienced, the result of asking whether the “mating dance” leaves everyone involved worse off (on net, aggregated over agents) is that I conclude that no, it doesn’t.
I infer from your comments thus far that you’ve decided that I’m some kind of awful moralist buttinski who will only ever answer the question by concluding that yes, it does, and therefore all “mating dances” must be stopped, or at least pearl-clutched over. So, just to be very clear about this:
As I’ve said several times now, if the “mating dance” (or actions more generally) don’t leave everyone involved worse off (on net, aggregated over agents), I don’t have a problem with it.
If it does leave everyone involved worse off, I do have a problem with it.
If I observe a “mating dance” (or other action) that I expect to leave everyone involved worse off, I endorse acting so as to prevent that harm if I can do so.
If I observe a “mating dance” (or other action) that I expect not to leave everyone involved worse off, I endorse leaving it untouched.
If someone else observes a “mating dance” (or other action) that they expect to leave everyone involved worse off, I endorse them acting so as to prevent that harm if they can do so.
If they observe a “mating dance” (or other action) that they expect not to leave everyone involved worse off, I endorse them leaving it untouched.
If you object to any of the above, I’d like to hear your suggested alternative action, and whether you endorse that alternative for scenarios other than the “mating dance.” For example, if I see someone engaging in the “driving in traffic dance” or the “putting their wallet in the washing machine dance” in ways I expect to leave everyone involved worse off, do you reach the same conclusions?
Not only that, they can even significantly affect other people’s lives, as long as they don’t leave everyone involved worse off (on net, aggregated over agents).
I think we can deal with the “net” business quickly.
Jack and Joe both desire Jill. Jack perceives that he can win Jill’s affections in competition with Joe, Jill would be just as happy with Joe, but that Joe would be happier than himself (Jack) with Jill.
The “net maximum” would be Jill with Joe. Do you expect Jack to bow out and leave Jill to Jack? Will you punish him if he doesn’t? Will you punish those who fail to punish Jack?
It seems from what you have said that your answers to this would be yes, yes, yes, and you’re back to being a punishing utilitarian.
My answers are no, no, no. I don’t expect Jack to sacrifice his happiness for Joe.
Are you positing a non-iterated affection competition, here? One-shot, there’s one girl, two guys, end of story, no further interactions, nothing else of value to be exchanged?
If so, then I certainly agree with you. In such a constrained universe, social behavior is useless.
If not, then depending on the details of what further interactions are likely, a strategy with a higher expected value for Jack probably exists which would involve Jack bowing out.
Do I expect Jack to adopt that strategy spontaneously? I dunno, it depends on how smart Jack is, and what information he has. Most humans won’t, though, so I don’t expect it of Jack either. I expect humans to defect on the prisoner’s dilemma, also.
Will I punish him if he doesn’t? Will I punish those who fail to punish Jack? Almost undoubtedly not. Ordinarily, the opportunity costs Jack incurs by pursuing a suboptimal strategy will be far outweighed by the costs I incur by a strategy of punishing people for being suboptimal. You could probably construct a scenario in which I would, though I expect it would be contrived.
I don’t expect Jack to sacrifice his happiness for Joe.
Everything affects everything else. Butterfly wings, and all that.
Actions don’t come with minus signs on them. A person may evaluate an action according to his values as negative. Negative, relative to what? Simply translating all values by a constant can change whether a particular value is negative or not. And if negative is relative to a maximal, as defined by the person, then everything deviating from his preferences is a negative externality. If he is committed to punishing those who deviate from his maximal, and punishing those who fail to likewise punish, he’s committed to an endless war until he’s converted the entire world to his ideology. Punish, punish, punish, until it’s One Mind, One Will.
I find such people a social menace.
That’s the implication of a punishing utilitarian, which you seemed to be from your earlier comments. Your comment below seems to imply otherwise.
Now you’re ok with the PUA and his lady friend living their PUA lives, as long as they don’t significantly affect other people’s lives. So am I. Woman who aren’t attracted to men who employ PUA tactics won’t be. I presume the PUA folks at least attempt to avoid such women, and if they don’t they should. Sounds about the best we can do—there is some necessary friction to the discovery process of who matches who.
But it’s inconvenient for you as a third party to the mating dance? Maybe so. But most people put quite a high priority on finding a suitable mate. Do you find your inconvenience relatively “significant”?
I’m not sure I understood this.
You seem to be suggesting that the whole enterprise of taking action based on expected-value calculations is to be rejected because of the existence of chaotic uncertainty. If so, I simply disagree. Sure, butterfly wings might cause hurricanes, but that’s not the way to bet.
If I’ve misunderstood you, I apologize. If you are willing to try to express yourself differently, I’ll try again to understand
That’s true.
Here, again, I’m not sure I follow you.
I perform an expected value calculation on an act, and conclude the expected value of the act is negative based on my values. Another way of saying that is that the expected value of the world after that act is performed is lower than its expected value if that act is not performed.
Sure. Punishing everyone who behaves imperfectly until I’ve converted the entire world is a really bad strategy; it just doesn’t work, as has been demonstrated many many times. 100% agreed.
Sure, I agree.
Did I? My goodness. Well, I’m glad we cleared up that misunderstanding.
Not only that, they can even significantly affect other people’s lives, as long as they don’t leave everyone involved worse off (on net, aggregated over agents). Which is why I started out by talking about checking for that condition in the first place. Which is why I disagree with the implications of “Now” in your sentence.
Great. glad we agree.
Nope, not for any ordinary understanding of “inconvenient.”. And, consequently, in cases where the expected value of the “mating dance” is that two people find suitable mates and I am inconvenienced, the result of asking whether the “mating dance” leaves everyone involved worse off (on net, aggregated over agents) is that I conclude that no, it doesn’t.
I infer from your comments thus far that you’ve decided that I’m some kind of awful moralist buttinski who will only ever answer the question by concluding that yes, it does, and therefore all “mating dances” must be stopped, or at least pearl-clutched over. So, just to be very clear about this:
As I’ve said several times now, if the “mating dance” (or actions more generally) don’t leave everyone involved worse off (on net, aggregated over agents), I don’t have a problem with it.
If it does leave everyone involved worse off, I do have a problem with it.
If I observe a “mating dance” (or other action) that I expect to leave everyone involved worse off, I endorse acting so as to prevent that harm if I can do so.
If I observe a “mating dance” (or other action) that I expect not to leave everyone involved worse off, I endorse leaving it untouched.
If someone else observes a “mating dance” (or other action) that they expect to leave everyone involved worse off, I endorse them acting so as to prevent that harm if they can do so.
If they observe a “mating dance” (or other action) that they expect not to leave everyone involved worse off, I endorse them leaving it untouched.
If you object to any of the above, I’d like to hear your suggested alternative action, and whether you endorse that alternative for scenarios other than the “mating dance.” For example, if I see someone engaging in the “driving in traffic dance” or the “putting their wallet in the washing machine dance” in ways I expect to leave everyone involved worse off, do you reach the same conclusions?
I think we can deal with the “net” business quickly.
Jack and Joe both desire Jill. Jack perceives that he can win Jill’s affections in competition with Joe, Jill would be just as happy with Joe, but that Joe would be happier than himself (Jack) with Jill.
The “net maximum” would be Jill with Joe. Do you expect Jack to bow out and leave Jill to Jack? Will you punish him if he doesn’t? Will you punish those who fail to punish Jack?
It seems from what you have said that your answers to this would be yes, yes, yes, and you’re back to being a punishing utilitarian.
My answers are no, no, no. I don’t expect Jack to sacrifice his happiness for Joe.
Are you positing a non-iterated affection competition, here? One-shot, there’s one girl, two guys, end of story, no further interactions, nothing else of value to be exchanged?
If so, then I certainly agree with you. In such a constrained universe, social behavior is useless.
If not, then depending on the details of what further interactions are likely, a strategy with a higher expected value for Jack probably exists which would involve Jack bowing out.
Do I expect Jack to adopt that strategy spontaneously? I dunno, it depends on how smart Jack is, and what information he has. Most humans won’t, though, so I don’t expect it of Jack either. I expect humans to defect on the prisoner’s dilemma, also.
Will I punish him if he doesn’t? Will I punish those who fail to punish Jack? Almost undoubtedly not. Ordinarily, the opportunity costs Jack incurs by pursuing a suboptimal strategy will be far outweighed by the costs I incur by a strategy of punishing people for being suboptimal. You could probably construct a scenario in which I would, though I expect it would be contrived.
No, neither do I.