Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans) • Hacker News Board

Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)

#31

Post by yters » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 11:35 AM UTC

billswift wrote: post #8

The ends are the only way to justify the means; what the sloppy thinkers who recite "The ends don't justify the means" really seem to mean is that some means are not justifiable. Which is undeniably true, but because they don't really think their position/slogan through, they often end up gathering a bunch of nonsense along with it.

No, when people say the ends don't justify the means, they mean that even if certain means lead to a very good outcome, they should still never be done. So, these means could be justified in some sense, yet they are still unacceptable.

Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)

#32

Post by yters » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 11:41 AM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #17

electromagnetic wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. Slaughtering 20 junior school students and a crossing guard are not acceptable means to get your daughter from school to her dentist appointment on time. It is however acceptable to kill 20 enemy combatants to rescue a dignitary from a besieged embassy.

> "It is however acceptable to kill 20 enemy combatants to rescue a dignitary from a besieged embassy." Even if the dignitary was Von Ribbentrop? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_von_Ribbentrop Semi-deontological ethical rules suffer the same problems as deontological ethical rules.

De-ontological ethics are hierarchically ordered. If one must choose between a lesser and greater good, one must choose the greater good. But, that doesn't make the action ontologically right.

I.e. stealing qua stealing is always wrong, but it is right to steal to feed a starving family, if stealing is necessary. However, stealing is still wrong.

Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)

#33

Post by igravious » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 11:48 AM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #28

igravious wrote: post #14

So let me get this straight. The author is saying that his answer to the the classic hypothetical dilemma in ethics of "is it right to do harm (murder one) to prevent a greater harm (death of five)" which usually framed in utilitarian-ish debates is: a hypothetical incorruptible super awesome version of me would murder the innocent person but as I am not that type of being (and only that type of being can answer the…

Did you miss the bit where Jesus asserted power over death and came back to life after three days? The sacrifice was a blood sacrifice, not a soul sacrifice. Eternal suffering doesn't come into it.

Haha. No, I didn't miss that bit. I had it pretty well drummed into me as a kid in good old catholic Ireland. I'm no theologian but I was told he died for our sins which was awfully nice of him. I'm sure everything was roses post-mortem.

I was merely bringing the thought experiment to its logical utilitarian conclusion and showing that in doing so it has some mythical/biblical/primordial resonances.

Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)

#34

Post by yters » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 12:10 PM UTC

syllogism wrote: post #10

iwwr wrote: post #2

A creature running under that paradigm is abandoning their humanity. We can only exist as human beings with rights if we respect our fellows' human rights.

What do you mean by that? Why is it so? What is a "right", in fact? You've just offered another slogan. You're going to have to work harder than that if you want to argue against consequentialism --- the idea that what matters are the consequences of each action, not the principles it contravenes.

What ends are good in consequentialism? De-ontological morals to one degree or another are necessary to avoid moral relativism. If you agree moral relativism is bad, you agree consequentialism is bad.

Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)

#35

Post by yters » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 12:11 PM UTC

Groxx wrote: post #4

iwwr wrote: post #2

A creature running under that paradigm is abandoning their humanity. We can only exist as human beings with rights if we respect our fellows' human rights.

By running under the paradigm that they assume they are flawed? That's the core claim in there. > ..if we respect our fellows' human rights This is a problematic clause. Whose rights do you disrespect: the one you pushed, or the 5 you could have saved?

Deontological ethics are hierarchical. Greater goods take precedence over lesser goods. But, killing someone for a greater good doesn't making killing good, i.e. it isn't justified.

Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)

#36

Post by yters » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 12:12 PM UTC

sp4rki wrote: post #15

iwwr wrote: post #2

A creature running under that paradigm is abandoning their humanity. We can only exist as human beings with rights if we respect our fellows' human rights.

So if your daughter is kidnapped by the a Colombian Drug Cartel and you decided that since you're a badass, you're going to go save her. Then you kill 20 baddies that are themselves cutthroat murderers that would have undeniably killed a greater number of people. Can you really tell me that the ends wouldn't justify the means? If MI-5 kills 4 terrorists which where preparing to bomb a bus station with hundreds if not…

Rights are a social contract. You give up your rights once you violate those of others.

Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)

#37

Post by patrickk » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 12:18 PM UTC

Surely a sufficiently advanced AI would simply send a warning signal to the train driver to "hit the brakes quick". Next problem please.

Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)

#38

Post by igravious » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 12:34 PM UTC

gjm11 wrote: post #30

igravious wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great response. I did not highlight the distinction that in this class of hypotheticals that the lesser harm requires action and that the greater harm requires one to simply do nothing, to stand idly by as it were - oh my god, I can here the voice of my prof in my head from days gone by as I clarify this point. Still, the causal link remains, one can either choose to act or not (or insist that you cannot even begin t…

> but I find it fairly meaningless Why? I don't find your hint helpful; I have a pretty good idea what an epistemological state is but no idea what an "ethical state" or "aesthetical state" would be. The meaning seems perfectly clear to me: human nature, with all its cognitive biases and imperfections of memory and perception and limited thinking speed and imagination and so forth, makes it very unlikely that you wil…

If epistemological state means anything at all it means (the possibility of) being able to hold a certain belief or acquire certain knowledge. It is as meaningful or as meaningless as using the phrase "ethical state" or the phrase "aesthetical state" and I stand by that claim.

If EY had meant: human nature, with all its cognitive biases and imperfections of memory and perception and limited thinking speed and imagination and so forth, makes it very unlikely that you will ever really be in the situation of having to choose between definitely-for-certain killing one person and definitely-for-certain letting one die, with definitely-for-certain no other options. then maybe he should have spelled all that out, don't you think?

I reassert that very little new was said in this article and what was said was wrapped in a ton of verbiage.

He says (and I paraphrase) - take this hypothetical utilitarian dilemma, then imagine this being that is qualitatively different from you or me. I imagine the being would respond thus owing to its special ability but as I am not worthy of a micron of its circuity I would have to choose otherwise as I do not have this special-ness. And he goes on to say, this so happens to turn out to coincide with the old maxim "the end doesn't justify the means" but I'm not saying that this is an intrinsic law or anything and I certainly wouldn't constrain our robotic overlords to it, they may very well judge it right to sacrifice one person now to save many later and I'd go along with that.

He might be saying: It is unlikely that you will ever be in such a situation and, empirically, situations at all like that are very rare. as you suggest but then again that does not seem to jibe with what he actually says: think the universe is sufficiently unkind that we can justly be forced to consider situations of this sort. and: But any human legal system does embody some answer to the question "How many innocent people can we put in jail to get the guilty ones?", even if the number isn't written down.

What is AIUI by the way? And I know I say future perfect hypothetical self at times and perfected other being at times but it doesn't alter what I'm saying - you'll grant that a superintelligence could theoretically maybe possibly fold all the remaining meat-machines into itself (don't you?), at least that appears to be one claim of singularity-types. Oh, I also find most of the singularity arguments compelling just in case you think I'm against super AIs or anything.

Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)

#39

Post by iwwr » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 2:05 PM UTC

j_baker wrote: post #12

iwwr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rights are characters of the individual, even if the individual lives in a social context. So those 10 have as much rights as those 100. Sacrificing the few for the sake of the many means you yourself are never justifiably safe, you can always be in the minority.

Sure. But you have to sacrifice someone's rights, don't you? By not enslaving those 10 people, you're sacrificing the rights of those 100 people. And while that doesn't mean that you're ever safe, it does guarantee that you have the highest chance of being safe.

When you are acting like that, you are not sacrificing other people's rights, but your own. That is, you are opening yourself up for rightful retaliation from the victims, or whoever might want to champion their cause (friends, families etc). You may be able to physically defend yourself, but you won't have moral grounds to plead your case. In other words, if you act like an animal, you can be treated as such.

Re: Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans)

#40

Post by iwwr » Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 2:19 PM UTC

sp4rki wrote: post #15

iwwr wrote: post #2

A creature running under that paradigm is abandoning their humanity. We can only exist as human beings with rights if we respect our fellows' human rights.

So if your daughter is kidnapped by the a Colombian Drug Cartel and you decided that since you're a badass, you're going to go save her. Then you kill 20 baddies that are themselves cutthroat murderers that would have undeniably killed a greater number of people. Can you really tell me that the ends wouldn't justify the means? If MI-5 kills 4 terrorists which where preparing to bomb a bus station with hundreds if not…

I'd be totally justified in trying to save my daughter and nobody would be justified in stopping me. This is not a case of ends justifying the means because my opponents are all unjust. I am not sacrificing innocents to get her back. However, if innocents happened to be in the way, I'd have to make a choice in either abandoning my rights or not; the innocents would be entitled to retaliate.

In the anti-terrorism case, if the presumed terrorists were in fact innocents, then they (or their champions) would have a right to retaliate against the aggressors or against their commanders.

In our minds and to ourselves, we are always justified, but we can't justify ourselves from a moral standpoint, nor plead our case if the innocents have decided to retaliate.