Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bentham's Mugging (2022)

cambridge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–103 of 103 posts

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#101

Post by hgomersall »

jjk166 wrote: post #100
hgomersall wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not, he's explicitly saying the value to him of his finger is more than £10. The finger is clearly a case where the utility disparity is obvious.

He can say it's worth whatever he wants, but the fact is he is willing to cut off his finger in an effort to get £10, thus £10 must provide equal or greater utility. > The finger is clearly a case where the utility disparity is obvious. This is the erroneous assumption that leads to the false conclusion. There's no such thing as an obvious utility disparity. It's a decent heuristic that works fine in the real world,…

He's not willing to do it. He explicitly does not want to do it and is only going to do it to lower overall utility by more than the £10 can provide to either party. That is, it only makes sense if he values his finger by more than £10.

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#102

Post by jjk166 »

hgomersall wrote: post #101
jjk166 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He can say it's worth whatever he wants, but the fact is he is willing to cut off his finger in an effort to get £10, thus £10 must provide equal or greater utility. > The finger is clearly a case where the utility disparity is obvious. This is the erroneous assumption that leads to the false conclusion. There's no such thing as an obvious utility disparity. It's a decent heuristic that works fine in the real world,…

He's not willing to do it. He explicitly does not want to do it and is only going to do it to lower overall utility by more than the £10 can provide to either party. That is, it only makes sense if he values his finger by more than £10.

We're dealing with two different definitions of "willing." You're using willing to mean a desire to do it. I'm using willing to mean he will choose to do it. It's like I desire to quit my job, but I don't actually quit, because I'm not willing. I desire to be fit, but I'm not willing to give up desert.

It doesn't matter how much the mugger claims he doesn't want to lose his fingers, the fact that he will nevertheless choose a path that causes him to lose his fingers of his own volition means that he has set the utility as being lower.

Yes, the premise only makes sense if he values his finger more than £10, but he demonstrably does not, ergo the premise is contradicted.

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#103

Post by HWR_14 »

jefftk wrote: post #37
HWR_14 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Act utilitarians specifically don't believe in evaluating the overall consequences of a policy. Rule utilitarians do that. That is, in fact, the major difference between the two.

Good point, I phrased it poorly. Because of the effects of the specific action, I think an act utilitarian should still refuse to be mugged in this case. The policy I was describing is just a mental shortcut, a part of adapting morality to human beings. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-level_utilitarianism for more in this direction.

Two level utilitarians are primarily rule utilitarians, not act utilitarians.
Post reply on HN