Effective Altruism

[Tassman]

Here is a fun exercise for you to do at home:
1: Write a paragraph that describes what Darth Executor believes.
2: Write a paragraph that describes what Shunyadragon believes.

I'm sure when you're writing the paragraph for Darth Executor you'll have a great time misrepresenting his beliefs, sprinkling in some hyperbole, reflexively adding the whole 'racist', 'sexist', 'homophobe' triumvirate that every liberal moron who binge watches CNN while dropping acid uses as an end zone dance - yes, it will be rife with that offal from the opening line, through the long winded and incoherent body right up to the closing fin - all written with the pomposity that caused us to love you in the first place. However, if one can look past the misspellings, the utter absence of logic, and your curious habit of writing Darth Executor's name in red crayon, one will see that you're actually responding to something real, granted in your own adolescent manner.

The problem will not occur to you until you sit down to write the same analysis for Shunyadragon. You'll sit there scratching your head for an entire minute, littering the blank sheet of paper before you with a fine layer of dandruff - flecks of dried skin raining down onto the table - each like the little snowflake you've become - and then it will hit you: You have no freakin' idea what Shunyadragon believes because the man never actually takes a position on anything. I've seen him run, not walk, but run away from the teachings of his own religion. He's constantly taking the most clearly presented ideas and tangling them up into a sophistic mess.

Get real, Tassman.
Seriously.

Just love it when you pretend to be superior.

I made a flow chart for those of you in the back of the class:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]21286[/ATTACH]

Yet another positive contribution from the circular balloonist.

[Tassman]

But why utilitarianism? Because it subjectively appeals to you?

Why Christianity? Because it subjectively appeals to you?

[Starlight]

You are speaking in circles.

Not at all, and to some extent I assume you are trolling, since we have been over this before. A person can have positive or negative attitudes toward others.

They can have a malevolent attitude of wanting them to have all the kinds of experiences they would never want for themselves, of wanting them to suffer and die or come to harm, of wanting to see generalized "bad things to happen" to those other people. That is what I mean when I speak of "ill-will" or "malevolence" or of "valuing negatively the well-being of someone else", and that is what I define to be an "evil person".

Likewise a person can have a malevolent attitude of wanting them to experience the kinds of things that you yourself would want to see happen to you or to someone you loved, of wanting them to thrive and prosper, or wanting to see "good things happen" to those people. And that is what I mean when I speak of "good-will" or "benevolence" or "valuing them as a person", and that is what I define to be a "good person".

At base is it about whether you take a positive or negative attitude toward others. Do you want to see them come to (whatever you consider to be) harm, or do want to see them prosper? It is whether you love others or hate others, or sit somewhere in between, that measures how good you are as a person.

[Meh Gerbil]

Why Christianity? Because it subjectively appeals to you?

Yes.
Do I need additional reasons?

[Sparko]

Not at all, and to some extent I assume you are trolling, since we have been over this before. A person can have positive or negative attitudes toward others.

They can have a malevolent attitude of wanting them to have all the kinds of experiences they would never want for themselves, of wanting them to suffer and die or come to harm, of wanting to see generalized "bad things to happen" to those other people. That is what I mean when I speak of "ill-will" or "malevolence" or of "valuing negatively the well-being of someone else", and that is what I define to be an "evil person".

Likewise a person can have a malevolent attitude of wanting them to experience the kinds of things that you yourself would want to see happen to you or to someone you loved, of wanting them to thrive and prosper, or wanting to see "good things happen" to those people. And that is what I mean when I speak of "good-will" or "benevolence" or "valuing them as a person", and that is what I define to be a "good person".

At base is it about whether you take a positive or negative attitude toward others. Do you want to see them come to (whatever you consider to be) harm, or do want to see them prosper? It is whether you love others or hate others, or sit somewhere in between, that measures how good you are as a person.

Now you are just using "malevolent" to mean "bad" - your entire value system has no basis. You talk about "harm" and "prosper" - yet what do they mean? You can give a homeless man $100, and that will prosper him right? What if he prospers by buying a bottle of booze? What if his friends see him get it and mug him for it? Was your action good? Or malevolent? Do intentions matter? Why? Why not?


You are speaking about terms like Good/Evil/Prosper/Malevolent and so on and they are just synonyms for "What I think is good or bad" - Someone else might have a totally different value system. I might think it is good to kill the homeless person to rid society of the burden. Do my intentions count then?

You seem to believe and act as if Good and Evil are moral concepts that everyone understands and agrees on, and even those who disagree are just "wrong" because there is an objective standard out there that everyone SHOULD agree on. Yet when asked you will deny this. That is what I am pointing out to you. I am not trolling.

[Starlight]

Now you are just using "malevolent" to mean "bad" - your entire value system has no basis.

You get that that was a definition right? I'm going to cease responding to any trolling claims that it's circular because you're simply wrong.

You talk about "harm" and "prosper" - yet what do they mean? You can give a homeless man $100, and that will prosper him right? What if he prospers by buying a bottle of booze? What if his friends see him get it and mug him for it? Was your action good? Or malevolent? Do intentions matter?

There are three different things that is can be worth assessing: 1. whether a person in general has a positive attitude toward others; 2. whether a particular action is done with positive intentions; 3. whether a particular action had positive consequences.

When talking about morality itself we usually want to concentrate only on the first 2 things in that list, because that tells us whether a person is a good person or whether a particular action is a good action. While it's nearly always worth paying attention to the consequences of actions, those consequences tend to be very complicated and messy and have a degree of randomness - the same action, e.g. giving a person $100 in your example, if performed twice with identical intentions can yield two quite different sets of consequences depending on what else happens. Obviously a kind and benevolent person who gave the $100 with good intentions might respond if they see it going horribly wrong in terms of consequences, by saying to themselves "oops, that turned out badly, I won't do that again, because now I have knowledge that that is not a reliable way to help others".

I might think it is good to kill the homeless person to rid society of the burden. Do my intentions count then?

Yes, I would obviously measure the morality of the action by your intentions: You have positive intentions towards society, but very negative intentions towards the homeless person.

You seem to believe and act as if Good and Evil are moral concepts that everyone understands and agrees on

Not exactly. Everyone understands love and kindness and benevolence and generosity, and acting out of these sort of motivations toward others. Everyone understands hatred and dislike and malevolence and a desire to see others suffer, and understands what it means to act out of these sort of motivations towards others. As part of how we as humans navigate the social world around us, those are the sort of things we both subconsciously and consciously analyse and look for on a continuous and daily basis, because it's important to try to understand the motivations of people around us. Not everyone slaps the labels 'good' and 'evil' on those things they measure daily, like I do, but everyone does measure and use them. As per the OP, I've observed that most atheists seem to hold to some sort of version of utilitarianism like I do.

and even those who disagree are just "wrong" because there is an objective standard out there that everyone SHOULD agree on. Yet when asked you will deny this.

Huh? I don't deny that. I believe in an objective moral standard, I am a moral realist. I think you can measure morality in the same sort of way you can measure distance: A yard or a meter are real things and distance really exists regardless of whether people bicker about whether they prefer to measure it in yards or meters, and in the same way any person can have positive or negative intentions towards others that they act out of and those really exist and you can formulate slightly different ways of measuring them and bicker about your slightly different measuring sticks if you like.

[Sparko]

You get that that was a definition right? I'm going to cease responding to any trolling claims that it's circular because you're simply wrong.

There are three different things that is can be worth assessing: 1. whether a person in general has a positive attitude toward others; 2. whether a particular action is done with positive intentions; 3. whether a particular action had positive consequences.

Sorry but who decides what is a "positive" outcome? Or what is "positive" attitude? You might say that thinking Abortion should be legal is a "positive" attitude and I will say it is totally is not. You might think a woman who aborts her baby has done it with positive intentions, I do not. You might say that her not having to care for a baby is a positive consequence, I would not.

See? You are using YOUR value of "good" and "benevolent" "positive" etc and expecting it to be something universally agreed upon. It isn't.

When talking about morality itself we usually want to concentrate only on the first 2 things in that list, because that tells us whether a person is a good person or whether a particular action is a good action. While it's nearly always worth paying attention to the consequences of actions, those consequences tend to be very complicated and messy and have a degree of randomness - the same action, e.g. giving a person $100 in your example, if performed twice with identical intentions can yield two quite different sets of consequences depending on what else happens. Obviously a kind and benevolent person who gave the $100 with good intentions might respond if they see it going horribly wrong in terms of consequences, by saying to themselves "oops, that turned out badly, I won't do that again, because now I have knowledge that that is not a reliable way to help others".

Yes, I would obviously measure the morality of the action by your intentions: You have positive intentions towards society, but very negative intentions towards the homeless person.

So INTENTIONS are what counts.
So if I think killing whales is good that it keeps them breeding more and helps my family too, and by doing that good, I make them extinct, was my act good because my intentions were?

Not exactly. Everyone understands love and kindness and benevolence and generosity, and acting out of these sort of motivations toward others.

So you do think there is an objective standard for "good" and "evil"

Huh? I don't deny that. I believe in an objective moral standard, I am a moral realist.

great. Now do you know what an objective moral standard is and what it means?

I think you can measure morality in the same sort of way you can measure distance: A yard or a meter are real things and distance really exists regardless of whether people bicker about whether they prefer to measure it in yards or meters, and in the same way any person can have positive or negative intentions towards others that they act out of and those really exist and you can formulate slightly different ways of measuring them and bicker about your slightly different measuring sticks if you like.

I would say that if an objective moral standard exists, that doesn't mean everyone will actually agree with it. There will be those who are just evil and will think doing evil things is great, or have such twisted values that they think doing something evil is good. But regardless if a person BELIEVES in a specific good or evil, if morals are OBJECTIVE then an act can be really good or evil no matter what the person thinks of their own action. If you think that raping a woman is good, that doesn't mean it is good, it is objectively evil. If the entire world thought that raping women was good, it would still be evil. Do you agree with that?

Objective morality would be akin to the earth being round. Even though you might have people like John Martin claiming it is flat, the objective reality is that is is round. It was even round back when everyone thought it was flat.

[Darth Executor]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...uism-debate%2F

This reminds me of something I never got around to bringing up during Starlight's dodging and weaving session, which is that his philosophy leads to some pretty lulzy conclusions. For example, why does Singer think that what brings the most happiness is for the first world to become de facto wage slaves to the third world? Wouldn't it be easier, and better for humanity in the long run to euthanize most of the third world instead? Those people are (according to Singer) living in complete misery. Persuading first worlders to give all their possessions to perpetual screw-ups doesn't seem to be working. So wouldn't effective altruists create more joy and happiness by engaging in the humane extermination of, say, most of sub-saharan africa?

Mathematically, this is by far the better choice. Sure, there would be some temporary misery as black people across the continent cry and beg Effective Altruism Death with Dignity Legions not to shoot them in the head but after that the continent could be repopulated by people who already know how to run a self-sufficient advanced society instead of putting all your eggs in a so far futile experiment to turn the third world into the first. And from then into the forseeable future the average happiness of human beings would skyrocket.

[Sparko]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...uism-debate%2F



This reminds me of something I never got around to bringing up during Starlight's dodging and weaving session, which is that his philosophy leads to some pretty lulzy conclusions. For example, why does Singer think that what brings the most happiness is for the first world to become de facto wage slaves to the third world? Wouldn't it be easier, and better for humanity in the long run to euthanize most of the third world instead? Those people are (according to Singer) living in complete misery. Persuading first worlders to give all their possessions to perpetual screw-ups doesn't seem to be working. So wouldn't effective altruists create more joy and happiness by engaging in the humane extermination of, say, most of sub-saharan africa?

Mathematically, this is by far the better choice. Sure, there would be some temporary misery as black people across the continent cry and beg Effective Altruism Death with Dignity Legions not to shoot them in the head but after that the continent could be repopulated by people who already know how to run a self-sufficient advanced society instead of putting all your eggs in a so far futile experiment to turn the third world into the first. And from then into the forseeable future the average happiness of human beings would skyrocket.

Yeah I did a bit about that when I brought up abortion and his attempt to explain "good" with "benevolent" and "positive"

I was going to bring up how the Nazi's were doing "good" by their standard of ridding the world of what they thought of as subhuman parasites. But I didn't want to be accused of Godwin's Law.

[Tassman]

Yes.
Do I need additional reasons?

Substantive evidence would be nice.

[Meh Gerbil]

Substantive evidence would be nice.

Why?
How does substantive evidence get treated when a person disagrees with it?

I don't see what would change.

[Tassman]

Why?

How does substantive evidence get treated when a person disagrees with it?

I don't see what would change.

[seer]

You mean like the concrete evidence for your all powerful god Multiverse?

[Tassman]

You mean like the concrete evidence for your all powerful god Multiverse?

ANY notion of an all powerful god, given that there's no substantive evidence of such an entity.

[Starlight]

ANY notion of an all powerful god, given that there's no substantive evidence of such an entity.

I was talking to Jaecp on facebook yesterday, and he was noting that a lot of theists assume that atheists must substitute something else in for God, and he's noticed a lot of theists sort of assume that evolution must fulfill the God-role for atheists and be something they "believe in" and "follow". He thinks this is why a lot of theists try to use weird misconceptions about evolution in arguments against atheists, because they see it as being "the atheist God". Seer looks like he's trying to do the same with our "all powerful god Multiverse".

Well, "all hail multiverse!" I guess... as part of my daily worship of multiverse over the next five seconds I will perform all possible actions simultaneously...