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

21–30 of 103 posts

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#21

Post by Micaiah_Chang »

MereInterest wrote: post #11
kubb wrote: post #3

It’s amazing how contrived and detached from reality the counterexamples for utilitarianism have to be able to attack even the most basic forms of it. It really makes you think that utilitarianism is a solid principle.

This is known as a "reductio ad absurdum" argument, and isn't contrived at all. It's easy to make a general rule that applies in the majority of cases. To test whether a general rule has flaws, and to improve upon a general rule, it must be tested by applying it to edge cases. The same way that you test a datetime library by picking potential edge cases (e.g. Leap Day, dates before 1970, dates between Feb. 1-13 in 19…

Do we want to talk about a hypothetical world where deontology was the underlying moral principle? Where, for example, a large agency in charge of approving vaccines decided to delay approval of a life saving because, even though they received the information on November 20th, they scheduled the meeting for December 10-12th dammit, and that's when it'll be done? By potentially delaying several months because, instead of using challenge trials to directly assess the safety of a vaccine by exposing willing volunteers to both the supposed cure and disease, instead gave the cure to a couple of tens of thousands of people, and just waited until enough of them got sick and died to a disease "that would have got them anyway" to gather enough statistics for safety? Which is definitely good, you see, because no one got directly harmed by said agency, even if many more people in the country were dying of this theoretical disease. [0]

Or, even better, what if distribution of this life saving cure was done based on the deontological concept of fairness? Surely, this wouldn't result in limited and highly demanded vaccines being literally thrown away[1] in the name of equity and where vaccination companies wouldn't need to seek approval for something as simple as increasing doses of vaccines in vials. [2]

You know, just all theoretically, since it would be a terrible shame if any of these things happened in the real world, since this is just one specific scenario and I'm sure I can make up various [3] other [4] ways [5] in which not carefully evaluating the consequences of moral actions would turn out poorly, but hey!

I'm sure glad that utilitarianism isn't being entertained more on the margin, since we already live in the best of all possible moral universes.

(Footnote, I'm not going to justify these citations within this post, because it's pithier this way. I recognize this is not being fully honest and transparent, but I'd be happy to fully defend the inclusion of any these, if necessary)

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e1.htm

[1] https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-story-of-vaccinateca ctrl f "On being legally forbidden to administer lifesaving healthcare"

[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/moderna-asks-fda-approve-mor...

[3] https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2010/07/01/the-playpump-wh...

[4] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2641547

[5] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=983649

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#22

Post by MereInterest »

roenxi wrote: post #16
MereInterest wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is known as a "reductio ad absurdum" argument, and isn't contrived at all. It's easy to make a general rule that applies in the majority of cases. To test whether a general rule has flaws, and to improve upon a general rule, it must be tested by applying it to edge cases. The same way that you test a datetime library by picking potential edge cases (e.g. Leap Day, dates before 1970, dates between Feb. 1-13 in 19…

The problem here is that the counterargument is contrived to the point where it is stupid. This article isn't identifying a problem in theory or practice. In theory a utilitarian is likely comfortable with the in-principle idea that they might need to sacrifice themselves for a greater good. Pointing that out isn't a counterargument against utilitarianism. In practice, no utilitarian would fall for something this dum…

> In practice, no utilitarian would fall for something this dumb.

This is the penultimate conclusion of the dialogue as well, that even Bentham would need to admit so many post-hoc deviations from the general rules of Utilitarianism that it ends up being a form of deontology instead. The primary takeaway is then that Utilitarianism works as a rule-of-thumb, but not as an underlying fundamental truth.

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#23

Post by tylerhou »

ameliaquining wrote: post #17

The problem here isn't with the main character's moral philosophy, but with his decision theory. He'd be dealing with exactly the same predicament if the mugger were threatening to harm him . The solution is indeed "don't give in to muggers", but it's possible to define this in a workable way. Suppose the mugger can choose between A (don't try to mug Bentham) or forcing Bentham to choose between B (give in) or C (don…

It does have to do with utilitarianism — if you change the mugger to harming Bentham, the situation is different. In that situation, many other reasonable moral theories would agree with utilitarianism.

In the original situation, where the mugger is harming themselves, the critique is that utilitarianists are required to treat their own interests as exactly the same as other people’s interests. It doesn’t matter if someone is harming themselves in order to provoke some action from you; if your action prevents that harm, you are obligated to do that action (even if you suffer because of it).

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#24

Post by snapcaster »

Diggsey wrote: post #6
nisegami wrote: post #5

I feel like this statement hides something critical, "Here's the thing: there is, clearly, more utility in me keeping my finger than in you keeping your measly ten pounds." My point is that, is that so clear? Or is the utility function being presumed here lacking?

Well the ten pounds still exists either way. You'd have to argue that there's more utility in Bentham owning the £10 than the mugger owning the £10, and that the difference in utility between them is greater than the utility of a finger. I imagine you could define utility that way, but presumably the mugger could increase the cost (two fingers? an arm?) until the argument works. Also, if you do definite a utility fun…

Not really, my utility function weighs some mugger being hurt at 0

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#25

Post by Micaiah_Chang »

tylerhou wrote: post #23
ameliaquining wrote: post #17

The problem here isn't with the main character's moral philosophy, but with his decision theory. He'd be dealing with exactly the same predicament if the mugger were threatening to harm him . The solution is indeed "don't give in to muggers", but it's possible to define this in a workable way. Suppose the mugger can choose between A (don't try to mug Bentham) or forcing Bentham to choose between B (give in) or C (don…

It does have to do with utilitarianism — if you change the mugger to harming Bentham, the situation is different. In that situation, many other reasonable moral theories would agree with utilitarianism. In the original situation, where the mugger is harming themselves, the critique is that utilitarianists are required to treat their own interests as exactly the same as other people’s interests. It doesn’t matter if s…

Yes, the point of the GP comment is exactly this, if Bentham becomes an agent that goes for C, he also explicitly discourages the mugger from being an agent that would cut off their fingers for a couple of bucks.

Notice that what Bentham is altering is their strategy and not their utility. If they could spend 10 dollars to treat gangrene and save the fingers, they would do it. It's not clear many other morality systems would be as insistent on this as utilitarianism, because practitioners of other moralities curiously form epicycles defending why the status quo is fine anyway, how dare you imply I'm worse at morality.

Edit: Slight wording change for clarity

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#26

Post by ertgbnm »

The underlying assumption is that Bentham is a true act utilitarian yet simultaneously has 10 pounds in his pocket that he can stand to lose without much harm. If he truly were an act utilitarian, the utility of the 10 pounds remaining in Bentham's possession must be so high that it outweighs the mugger losing their finger, otherwise Bentham would have already spent it on something similarly utility maximizing. Clearly that 10 pounds was already destined to maximize utility such as staving off Bentham's hunger and avoiding his own death or the death of others.

Meanwhile the utility of the mugger's finger is questionable. The pain of losing the finger is the only real cost. If they are just a petty criminal, the loss of their finger will probably reduce their ability to commit crimes and prevent him from inflicting as much suffering on others as he otherwise would have. Maybe losing his finger actually increases utility.

Bentham: "I'm sorry Mr. Mugger but I am on my way to spend this 10 pounds on a supply of fever medication for the orphanage and I am afraid that if I don't procure the medicine, several children will die or suffer fever madness. So when faced with calculating the utility of this situation I must weigh your finger against the lives of these children. Good day. And if the experience of cutting your finger off makes you question your own deontological beliefs, feel free to call upon me for some tutoring on the philosophy of Act Utilitarianism."

Any other scenario and Bentham clearly isn't a true Act Utilitarian and would just tell the Mugger to shove his finger up his ass for all Bentham cares. Either strictly apply the rules or don't apply them at all.

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#27

Post by throwaway101223 »

> Here's the thing: there is, clearly, more utility in me keeping my finger than in you keeping your measly ten pounds.

How is this clear? This is one of the things I find strange about academic philosophy. For all the claims about trying to get at a more rigorous understanding of knowledge, the foundation at the end of the day seems to just be human intuition. You read about something like the Chinese Room or Mary’s Room thought experiments, that seem to appeal to immediate human reactions. “We clearly wouldn’t say…” or “No one would think…”

It feels like an act of obfuscation. People realize the fragility of relying on human intuition, and react by trying to dress human intuition up with extreme complexities in order to trick themselves into thinking they’re not relying on human intuition just as much as everyone else.

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#28

Post by [deleted] »

ameliaquining wrote: post #19
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #15

Bentham brought up a good point: > Fair enough. But, even so, I worry that giving you the money would set a bad precedent, encouraging copycats to run similar schemes. I don’t understand how it was logically defeated with escalation as in the story. Would it be wrong for a Utilitarian to continue arguing against this precedent, saying that the decision to be mugged removes overall Utility because now anyone who can b…

No, the mugger getting the money counts as negative. "Now, as an Act Utilitarian, I would happily part with ten pounds if I were convinced that you would bring more utility to the world with that money than I would. The trouble is I know I would put the money to good use myself – whereas you, I surmise, would not."

[deleted]

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#29

Post by alphazard »

The most pressing problem facing utilitarians has never been choosing between principled vs. consequentialist utilitarianism. It's how to take a vector of utilities, and turn it into a single utility.

What function do I use? Do I sum them, is it the mean, how about root-mean-squared? Why does your chosen function make more sense than the other options? Can I perform arithmetic on utilities from two different agents, isn't that like adding grams and meters?

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#30

Post by empath-nirvana »

roenxi wrote: post #16
MereInterest wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is known as a "reductio ad absurdum" argument, and isn't contrived at all. It's easy to make a general rule that applies in the majority of cases. To test whether a general rule has flaws, and to improve upon a general rule, it must be tested by applying it to edge cases. The same way that you test a datetime library by picking potential edge cases (e.g. Leap Day, dates before 1970, dates between Feb. 1-13 in 19…

The problem here is that the counterargument is contrived to the point where it is stupid. This article isn't identifying a problem in theory or practice. In theory a utilitarian is likely comfortable with the in-principle idea that they might need to sacrifice themselves for a greater good. Pointing that out isn't a counterargument against utilitarianism. In practice, no utilitarian would fall for something this dum…

> In practice, no utilitarian would fall for something this dumb.

What you are saying is exactly what the article says, and you are conceding the article's point, which is that nobody actually practices pure utilitarianism.

Post reply on HN