Very interesting. It's a bit surprising that in that long conversation, they never discuss the propensity of brilliant people to delude themselves into thinking they're acting in the common good for selfish purposes. Which makes this "esoteric morality" very dangerous.
Sam Bankman Fried of FTX seems like a perfect example of a utilitarian who went wrong by using Singer's precise philosophy here.
And of course the Covid "experts", Iraq War strategists, and "government house officials", are examples of it going wrong a just slightly-less-explictly-utilitarian way.
Well there is only one reality, and he made the wrong choice in it.
But he could argue that he made the best choices given the information he had at the time.
To outsiders that claim is not super plausible — if he had simply stayed within certain basic rule utilitarian norms that almost everyone agrees on, he would have done much more good.
I do believe that he *thought* he was making the best choice giving the information he had.
There aren't a lot of rule breakers who think they are in the wrong when breaking the rule.
Let me posit an even simpler test of SBF.
Given the amount of money he was in control of and his reputational position in the effective altruist community, his ability to exercise correct judgement has huge EV.
However, SBF's personal life was a minefield of terrible habits that were completely avoidable. He didn't need to eat poorly, do drugs, not get enough sleep, play video games during important business meetings, and generally just not take care of himself at a basic personal level. He also didn't need to be sleeping with business partners and engaging in other high risk arrangements that had no upside other then his personal desires.
Cutting out any of these habits would likely have increased his decision making powers and allowed him to better optimize his judgement of matters, perhaps in a way that would have avoided this mess.
But he didn't. The man who believed his life work was to amass billions so he could do the most good couldn't even engage in basic self maintenance that the most ordinary of us can manage. Doing so would have been incredibly high EV, but he didn't care, because he didn't want to.
This is game theory. When other actors have the ability to predict your actions, then the overall outcome depends not only on your decisions but also on the policy you used to make those decisions. So you should choose the policy that leads to the best outcome rather than making the decisions in isolation. This doesn't only apply to utilitarians.
Fascinating. The thing 'esoteric morality' most reminds me of is my experience of serious religion, where 'total commitment' is the only logical standard (and is more acknowledged and encouraged the further 'in' you go), but the publicly promoted standard avoids sacrificing too much.
I have to confess I found it pretty unappealing and the tension between good and best was something I struggled with and which probably contributed to my leaving.
Havnt read this yet, im About 70% sure i will think this blog article is a bit stupid and will forget that people see on ethics Obligation vs ideal in different ways
Ive found BCs previous articles on peter singer very silly in the past
I know this is an excerpt. To be clear, does it really stop there? Does Singer really end on "There surely are examples of noble lies that have worked."? That's pretty lame, if not embarrassing. And I thought his ""So I think there are utilitarian tendencies that are non-western" as a refutation to the charge that consequentialism is WEIRD was feeble, but at least he tried to support his point.
Strange how Singer is really one of the few utilitarians to discuss the noble lie, albeit somewhat hesitantly. Most probably other utilitarians are lying, and perhaps enjoy playing the part of a Straussian thinker.
Good to also see Singer acknowledge that with respects to trust their exists a minimum which could be overcome, and should perhaps be acknowledged in utilitarian calculus. Would be nice if utilitarians admitted that the global maximum for the utilitarian welfare function, was quite plausibly a whole lot stranger than various local maxima, and that any good utilitarian should figure out what the best local maxima are given various facts about the world and culture etc. and on the margin be pushing towards that whilst also carefully weighing in the possibility that your increasing/decreasing the probability of ending up at more desirable local maxima or the global maximum.
I dont get this (somewhat) obsession with utilitarians lying when jt to me seems more like everyone lies to a degree or another?
I have not noticed utilitarians being less trustworthy or lying more then the average person, probably less actually (though thats more selection bias probably)
A lot of people lie, but most regard it as a failing. Utilitarians are the ones calling it (potentially) virtuous. That's notable.
Leaves drift from my garden into my neighbour's garden, and vice versa, all the time. But if I'm deliberately shovelling them over the fence, and calling it my right as a freeholder, that's going to attract his attention very quickly.
The point is that the global maximum and various very desirable local maxima of the utilitarian welfare function, strongly go against various contemporary common sense beliefs and values. If this is true this to a large degree undermines the plausibility of the utilitarian ethical theory.
That is to say its not just under weird hypothetical scenarios when utilitarians, say choose the repugnant conclusion over some alternative, but rather that a good utilitarian is carefully trying push towards various local maxima whilst also regarding scenarios such as the x number of happy shrimp, or the strongly eugenic and strongly pro natalist futures etc. as superior outcomes, and possibly trying to account for such maxima. If you read the standard utilitarian responses to such a reductio ad absurdum, people such as Chappell posit that Liberal institutions are desirable and such, that is implicitly accepting the fact that if you could reach one of stranger maxima, such as the strong pro natalist one, it would be by utilitarian calculus very desirable, just that it would be hard to achieve. Relatedly this is why such utilitarians are very averse to considering hypotheticals where they are dictators and such, since they know exposing their true beliefs about the correct social welfare function and its implications undermines their cause.
If the welfare of animals counts for purposes of utilitarian ethics, why draw the line at eating meat? Why not advocate abolition of animal husbandry -- i.e., for allowing "domestic" animals to roam freely rather than confining them in coops, pens, stalls, or fenced-in enclosures?
Anyone who says that yet consumes dairy products or anything including them is a hypocrite. I don't say it, so I'm able to put cream in my coffee in good conscience. [smirk]
Very interesting. It's a bit surprising that in that long conversation, they never discuss the propensity of brilliant people to delude themselves into thinking they're acting in the common good for selfish purposes. Which makes this "esoteric morality" very dangerous.
Sam Bankman Fried of FTX seems like a perfect example of a utilitarian who went wrong by using Singer's precise philosophy here.
And of course the Covid "experts", Iraq War strategists, and "government house officials", are examples of it going wrong a just slightly-less-explictly-utilitarian way.
I think SBF would still assert he made the right choices in expectation.
Well there is only one reality, and he made the wrong choice in it.
But he could argue that he made the best choices given the information he had at the time.
To outsiders that claim is not super plausible — if he had simply stayed within certain basic rule utilitarian norms that almost everyone agrees on, he would have done much more good.
I do believe that he *thought* he was making the best choice giving the information he had.
There aren't a lot of rule breakers who think they are in the wrong when breaking the rule.
Let me posit an even simpler test of SBF.
Given the amount of money he was in control of and his reputational position in the effective altruist community, his ability to exercise correct judgement has huge EV.
However, SBF's personal life was a minefield of terrible habits that were completely avoidable. He didn't need to eat poorly, do drugs, not get enough sleep, play video games during important business meetings, and generally just not take care of himself at a basic personal level. He also didn't need to be sleeping with business partners and engaging in other high risk arrangements that had no upside other then his personal desires.
Cutting out any of these habits would likely have increased his decision making powers and allowed him to better optimize his judgement of matters, perhaps in a way that would have avoided this mess.
But he didn't. The man who believed his life work was to amass billions so he could do the most good couldn't even engage in basic self maintenance that the most ordinary of us can manage. Doing so would have been incredibly high EV, but he didn't care, because he didn't want to.
"Famine, Affluence, and Morality" is confused in three crucial ways: https://jclester.substack.com/p/peter-singers-famine-affluence-and
This is game theory. When other actors have the ability to predict your actions, then the overall outcome depends not only on your decisions but also on the policy you used to make those decisions. So you should choose the policy that leads to the best outcome rather than making the decisions in isolation. This doesn't only apply to utilitarians.
Singer is a hopeless pragmatist, valuable only as an example of the moral void permeating our culture.
?
Fascinating. The thing 'esoteric morality' most reminds me of is my experience of serious religion, where 'total commitment' is the only logical standard (and is more acknowledged and encouraged the further 'in' you go), but the publicly promoted standard avoids sacrificing too much.
I have to confess I found it pretty unappealing and the tension between good and best was something I struggled with and which probably contributed to my leaving.
Hm, wait isnt bryan caplan for breaking unjust laws and not telling anyone about breaking them?
Isnt that an noble lie of sorts?
Why this people with their disparate theories are considered intellectuals in any way?
Havnt read this yet, im About 70% sure i will think this blog article is a bit stupid and will forget that people see on ethics Obligation vs ideal in different ways
Ive found BCs previous articles on peter singer very silly in the past
I found the conversation interesting but i do not really at all see the same things as bryan caplan does
I feel like Bc is being a bit obsessed about utilitarians being immoral or lying vs the average population
I know this is an excerpt. To be clear, does it really stop there? Does Singer really end on "There surely are examples of noble lies that have worked."? That's pretty lame, if not embarrassing. And I thought his ""So I think there are utilitarian tendencies that are non-western" as a refutation to the charge that consequentialism is WEIRD was feeble, but at least he tried to support his point.
Strange how Singer is really one of the few utilitarians to discuss the noble lie, albeit somewhat hesitantly. Most probably other utilitarians are lying, and perhaps enjoy playing the part of a Straussian thinker.
Good to also see Singer acknowledge that with respects to trust their exists a minimum which could be overcome, and should perhaps be acknowledged in utilitarian calculus. Would be nice if utilitarians admitted that the global maximum for the utilitarian welfare function, was quite plausibly a whole lot stranger than various local maxima, and that any good utilitarian should figure out what the best local maxima are given various facts about the world and culture etc. and on the margin be pushing towards that whilst also carefully weighing in the possibility that your increasing/decreasing the probability of ending up at more desirable local maxima or the global maximum.
I dont get this (somewhat) obsession with utilitarians lying when jt to me seems more like everyone lies to a degree or another?
I have not noticed utilitarians being less trustworthy or lying more then the average person, probably less actually (though thats more selection bias probably)
A lot of people lie, but most regard it as a failing. Utilitarians are the ones calling it (potentially) virtuous. That's notable.
Leaves drift from my garden into my neighbour's garden, and vice versa, all the time. But if I'm deliberately shovelling them over the fence, and calling it my right as a freeholder, that's going to attract his attention very quickly.
The point is that the global maximum and various very desirable local maxima of the utilitarian welfare function, strongly go against various contemporary common sense beliefs and values. If this is true this to a large degree undermines the plausibility of the utilitarian ethical theory.
That is to say its not just under weird hypothetical scenarios when utilitarians, say choose the repugnant conclusion over some alternative, but rather that a good utilitarian is carefully trying push towards various local maxima whilst also regarding scenarios such as the x number of happy shrimp, or the strongly eugenic and strongly pro natalist futures etc. as superior outcomes, and possibly trying to account for such maxima. If you read the standard utilitarian responses to such a reductio ad absurdum, people such as Chappell posit that Liberal institutions are desirable and such, that is implicitly accepting the fact that if you could reach one of stranger maxima, such as the strong pro natalist one, it would be by utilitarian calculus very desirable, just that it would be hard to achieve. Relatedly this is why such utilitarians are very averse to considering hypotheticals where they are dictators and such, since they know exposing their true beliefs about the correct social welfare function and its implications undermines their cause.
If the welfare of animals counts for purposes of utilitarian ethics, why draw the line at eating meat? Why not advocate abolition of animal husbandry -- i.e., for allowing "domestic" animals to roam freely rather than confining them in coops, pens, stalls, or fenced-in enclosures?
My understanding is that his book on Animal Liberation does indeed say that animals should be given space to roam rather than being confined.
Anyone who says that yet consumes dairy products or anything including them is a hypocrite. I don't say it, so I'm able to put cream in my coffee in good conscience. [smirk]
Anyone else surprised at how both intellectually honest and honest Peter Singer was? I feel like I haven't seen that type in the past
Morality is the focused mind's guide to life. Sacrifice is the unfocused mind's guided to death.