Allow me an excursion which is not meant to subsume Eliezer Yudkowsky under Immanuel Kant or vice versa.
It is intended to depict what I regard as a related thought process, and point out where I see people often getting sidetracked with regards to what’s actually the issue (to my understanding).
Back in the Philosophy seminar on Kants prohibition on lying I felt everyone was missing the point and that this (to my understanding) was it:
Sometimes there is no “right thing” you can easily choose. Sometimes your choice is between the bad and the worse.
In such a case you should absolutely choose the bad over the worse, BUT THAT ISN’T TO SAY IT’S NO LONGER BAD!
If we picked the relatively best option we want to not feel guilty any more. We want to feel that we are excused and our choice was the right one. But sometimes different values place different demands on you, and you have to choose on the basis of immediate outcomes.
Which value you optimize for will reveal your character to you. And some people will want to see a flattering image. And they will want to be allowed to say “What I did was right!”—even if that implies to say “The other value, which I compromised under these extremely pressuring conditions isn’t all that important.”
Because if it were, see, you’d come out of a Sofie’s Choice situation and be traumatized and agonize about your decision. And you picked the best option of the ones available, so that wouldn’t be fair, now would it.
If we’re hiding the Führer from Jew pursuers or vice versa—the choice is between us getting to uphold our principle of honesty versus another person likely getting kkilled.Those are the practical stakes. And most people’s impulse to prioritize the life is so strong that they would want to discount that the demand of truth even exists.
But Policy debates should not appear one-sided; and if they have to be in public speaking, at least let them be as many faceted as they are in your own thinking.
Kant was the sort of person who would give to a charity he believed in once a year, generously enough to not have to worry about giving to every beggar—and sometimes he gave to beggars anyway.
i believe we can count on him being the sort of person who will go to pains to explain all the reasons why Truth does not belong to us, and we don’t get to bend it JUST as Eliezer says here, TO GET PEOPLE TO HESITATE, and the he would hide the fugitive and bear the moral burden of having lied instead of praising himself for having done so.
Note on glomarisation: Kant makes a lot of the statement that we’re supposed to always be honest—in statements you can’t avoid! He doesn’t talk of glomarisation, but he does say that people who are “quick on their mental feet” would be good at keeping secrets because they will just evade as best they can.
And in the end, if my memory doesn’t betray me here, I think his focus is less on “this is how you should act in that case” and more on “this is what happens if we allow caveats to the rule”, and “If you lie, whatever happens because of that is now your responsibility”.
Everythig breaks if we compromise honesty.
Sometimes that happens understandeably due to crazy pressure.
that doesn’t mean it … didn’t happen, or that we should now not be honest about that too and tell ourselves that all is, in fact fine.
But lies propagate...
Finally!
Allow me an excursion which is not meant to subsume Eliezer Yudkowsky under Immanuel Kant or vice versa. It is intended to depict what I regard as a related thought process, and point out where I see people often getting sidetracked with regards to what’s actually the issue (to my understanding).
Back in the Philosophy seminar on Kants prohibition on lying I felt everyone was missing the point and that this (to my understanding) was it:
Sometimes there is no “right thing” you can easily choose. Sometimes your choice is between the bad and the worse. In such a case you should absolutely choose the bad over the worse, BUT THAT ISN’T TO SAY IT’S NO LONGER BAD! If we picked the relatively best option we want to not feel guilty any more. We want to feel that we are excused and our choice was the right one. But sometimes different values place different demands on you, and you have to choose on the basis of immediate outcomes. Which value you optimize for will reveal your character to you. And some people will want to see a flattering image. And they will want to be allowed to say “What I did was right!”—even if that implies to say “The other value, which I compromised under these extremely pressuring conditions isn’t all that important.” Because if it were, see, you’d come out of a Sofie’s Choice situation and be traumatized and agonize about your decision. And you picked the best option of the ones available, so that wouldn’t be fair, now would it.
If we’re hiding the Führer from Jew pursuers or vice versa—the choice is between us getting to uphold our principle of honesty versus another person likely getting kkilled.Those are the practical stakes. And most people’s impulse to prioritize the life is so strong that they would want to discount that the demand of truth even exists. But Policy debates should not appear one-sided; and if they have to be in public speaking, at least let them be as many faceted as they are in your own thinking.
Kant was the sort of person who would give to a charity he believed in once a year, generously enough to not have to worry about giving to every beggar—and sometimes he gave to beggars anyway. i believe we can count on him being the sort of person who will go to pains to explain all the reasons why Truth does not belong to us, and we don’t get to bend it JUST as Eliezer says here, TO GET PEOPLE TO HESITATE, and the he would hide the fugitive and bear the moral burden of having lied instead of praising himself for having done so.
Note on glomarisation: Kant makes a lot of the statement that we’re supposed to always be honest—in statements you can’t avoid! He doesn’t talk of glomarisation, but he does say that people who are “quick on their mental feet” would be good at keeping secrets because they will just evade as best they can.
And in the end, if my memory doesn’t betray me here, I think his focus is less on “this is how you should act in that case” and more on “this is what happens if we allow caveats to the rule”, and “If you lie, whatever happens because of that is now your responsibility”.
Everythig breaks if we compromise honesty. Sometimes that happens understandeably due to crazy pressure. that doesn’t mean it … didn’t happen, or that we should now not be honest about that too and tell ourselves that all is, in fact fine. But lies propagate...