He’s heavy-handedly manipulating someone for their own good, in a way that increases his own power and makes him feel superior. He’s treating someone who should be a peer like a trainable dog.
If you accept that it’s for their own good—and if it does result in their own good—then shouldn’t that outweigh the heavy-handedness? But Hermione told him not to do that kind of thing at all, instead of “be less heavy-handed next time”.
As for making him feel superior? Harry already feels vastly superior to someone like Lesath, as well as mostly everyone else apart from Hermione. I don’t think giving him a few ‘orders for his own good’ would change anything there.
And he can’t treat Lesath like a peer, for the simple reason that Lesath wouldn’t accept it. If Lesath insists that Harry is his Lord, and Harry can’t change his mind about it (he tried!), why shouldn’t Harry use it for Lesath’s own good?
Come to think of it, we may well get to see this exchange. But since we won’t see it for a while, I’ll try to channel it:
“Harry, taking people’s interests into account—being a good guy—requires thinking of them as people. You care a lot about a human, less about a dog, and not at all about a paperclip, right?”
“Right.”
“So when you don’t treat a human like a human—”
“Hold on. You’re equivocating. To ‘treat a human like’ their desires are as important to my utility function as my own is an absolute good. To ‘treat a human like’ convention dictates a human should be treated is a contingent good—it only makes sense when that helps them achieve their desires.”
“No, they’re not the same thing, Harry. But they’re closely linked in your head. You have a cluster of concepts, instincts, and behaviors to do with humans, and each bit reinforces each other bit. You can plainly see how it works: if you spend a year pretending that a toy is a person, you’ll become incredibly reluctant to take it apart for spare parts. Conversely, if you start acting like people are your toys...”
“Now you’re dehumanizing me a bit, Hermione. If I go into an interaction with Padma planning to help her, I’m going to end up doing my best to help her. Because I’m a sentient being who is aware of his own intentions, not a finite state machine that can get accidentally stuck in the mode for dealing with paperclips.”
“Well, Harry, I guess you have more faith in yourself than I do. I think you want your utility function to be different from what it is. I think that, like a lot of people, you’re more selfish than you want to be.”
“That’s incoherent.”
“Exactly. You’re not going to behave in a logically coherent way. It’s okay to aspire to do so, I guess, but please realize that right now, you have to be sure not to—”
“Accidentally train myself to be a bad dog rather than a good dog?”
“Not to drift into Evil while trying to be Good. That’s the human condition.”
“To ‘treat a human like’ convention dictates a human should be treated is a contingent good—it only makes sense when that helps them achieve their desires”
The obvious thing this seems to miss is that most people do desire to be treated like people—at the very least as equals, and with dignity and respect.
So treating them otherwise is by itself of negative value—not just contingent to other consequences.
I basically agree, although in my mind it doesn’t make Harry’s line technically incorrect. It’s not always another’s desire to be treated as an equal, so in that sense it’s not an absolute good to treat people as one. Whereas it’s always another’s desire to have her desires fulfilled.
most people do desire to be treated like people—at the very least as equals, and with dignity and respect
Since Lesath is an exception (at least when treated by Harry), that should mean that Hermione’s objection doesn’t apply in this case, and Harry should realise as much.
I originally had written that below, but actually I disagree. Lesath doesn’t abase himself because he enjoys it! He does so because that’s how you get Dark Lords to do what you want. It’s reasonable to assume that he’d prefer being treated as an equal—he just has higher priorities than trying to make that happen.
I didn’t understand then, and I don’t understand now. Why was what Harry did wrong (according to Hermione)? And how is it similar to my proposal?
He’s heavy-handedly manipulating someone for their own good, in a way that increases his own power and makes him feel superior. He’s treating someone who should be a peer like a trainable dog.
If you accept that it’s for their own good—and if it does result in their own good—then shouldn’t that outweigh the heavy-handedness? But Hermione told him not to do that kind of thing at all, instead of “be less heavy-handed next time”.
As for making him feel superior? Harry already feels vastly superior to someone like Lesath, as well as mostly everyone else apart from Hermione. I don’t think giving him a few ‘orders for his own good’ would change anything there.
And he can’t treat Lesath like a peer, for the simple reason that Lesath wouldn’t accept it. If Lesath insists that Harry is his Lord, and Harry can’t change his mind about it (he tried!), why shouldn’t Harry use it for Lesath’s own good?
Come to think of it, we may well get to see this exchange. But since we won’t see it for a while, I’ll try to channel it:
“Harry, taking people’s interests into account—being a good guy—requires thinking of them as people. You care a lot about a human, less about a dog, and not at all about a paperclip, right?”
“Right.”
“So when you don’t treat a human like a human—”
“Hold on. You’re equivocating. To ‘treat a human like’ their desires are as important to my utility function as my own is an absolute good. To ‘treat a human like’ convention dictates a human should be treated is a contingent good—it only makes sense when that helps them achieve their desires.”
“No, they’re not the same thing, Harry. But they’re closely linked in your head. You have a cluster of concepts, instincts, and behaviors to do with humans, and each bit reinforces each other bit. You can plainly see how it works: if you spend a year pretending that a toy is a person, you’ll become incredibly reluctant to take it apart for spare parts. Conversely, if you start acting like people are your toys...”
“Now you’re dehumanizing me a bit, Hermione. If I go into an interaction with Padma planning to help her, I’m going to end up doing my best to help her. Because I’m a sentient being who is aware of his own intentions, not a finite state machine that can get accidentally stuck in the mode for dealing with paperclips.”
“Well, Harry, I guess you have more faith in yourself than I do. I think you want your utility function to be different from what it is. I think that, like a lot of people, you’re more selfish than you want to be.”
“That’s incoherent.”
“Exactly. You’re not going to behave in a logically coherent way. It’s okay to aspire to do so, I guess, but please realize that right now, you have to be sure not to—”
“Accidentally train myself to be a bad dog rather than a good dog?”
“Not to drift into Evil while trying to be Good. That’s the human condition.”
“To ‘treat a human like’ convention dictates a human should be treated is a contingent good—it only makes sense when that helps them achieve their desires”
The obvious thing this seems to miss is that most people do desire to be treated like people—at the very least as equals, and with dignity and respect.
So treating them otherwise is by itself of negative value—not just contingent to other consequences.
I basically agree, although in my mind it doesn’t make Harry’s line technically incorrect. It’s not always another’s desire to be treated as an equal, so in that sense it’s not an absolute good to treat people as one. Whereas it’s always another’s desire to have her desires fulfilled.
Since Lesath is an exception (at least when treated by Harry), that should mean that Hermione’s objection doesn’t apply in this case, and Harry should realise as much.
I originally had written that below, but actually I disagree. Lesath doesn’t abase himself because he enjoys it! He does so because that’s how you get Dark Lords to do what you want. It’s reasonable to assume that he’d prefer being treated as an equal—he just has higher priorities than trying to make that happen.
I don’t get that from Lesath; he seems like somebody who’s just a natural minion. But maybe he’s just that good at appearing to be a natural minion!
I like this. Let us know if you ever write fiction of your own, please :)
Thanks!