Bentham's Mugging (2022) • Hacker News Board

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#91

Post by piaste » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 9:32 AM UTC

AndrewDucker wrote: post #57

bwanab wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we end up coming full circle from "here are the rules" to "play each situation by ear". Ethics is just too dang hard!

I'm sure you can find a compromise in the middle of "Mostly follow some vague rules, but when they lead you to what seem to be negative outcomes think about whether it's because you don't enjoy doing the moral thing, or if it's because actually it's led somewhere unpleasant and you need a new rule for this situation."

It's even worse. People are exceptionally good at rationalising whatever it is they want to do and turn them into convenient rules that sound noble and high-minded.

It would be a much less frustrating world if the robber who takes your money would just tell you "hi, I'm taking your money because I can and because I like it" instead of earnestly believing that he deserves it for some complicated reason (pick your example).

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#92

Post by AndrewDucker » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 9:49 AM UTC

piaste wrote: post #91

AndrewDucker wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you can find a compromise in the middle of "Mostly follow some vague rules, but when they lead you to what seem to be negative outcomes think about whether it's because you don't enjoy doing the moral thing, or if it's because actually it's led somewhere unpleasant and you need a new rule for this situation."

It's even worse. People are exceptionally good at rationalising whatever it is they want to do and turn them into convenient rules that sound noble and high-minded. It would be a much less frustrating world if the robber who takes your money would just tell you "hi, I'm taking your money because I can and because I like it" instead of earnestly believing that he deserves it for some complicated reason (pick your exam…

Oh yes, retroactive justification is mostly what people do. And aren't aware that they're doing it most of the time.

Most muggers don't try to justify themselves philosophically, thankfully. That would just make the experience even more painful.

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#93

Post by crazygringo » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 1:27 PM UTC

earthboundkid wrote: post #48

Utilitarianism is supposed to be a strawman theory that you teach in the first week of class in order to show the flaws and build a real theory of ethics the remaining 14 weeks of the semester. SMDH at all these people who didn't get that basic point.

I can't tell if you're joking or not.

Utilitarianism has always been more about government policy, so yes it's largely inappropriate as the foundation for a system of personal ethics, at least in its basic forms.

But I'm unaware of any university class that has ever attempted to "build a real system of ethics".

That's not what moral philosophy classes do. The whole point is every moral system encounters major showstopper flaws, and how to reconcile those is one of the great unsolved problems of humanity.

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#94

Post by crazygringo » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 1:29 PM UTC

mminer237 wrote: post #76

throwaway101223 wrote: post #27

> 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…

If I offered to pay £10 for each fresh human finger brought to me, what moral system would say the right thing to do is cut off as many fingers as possible‽ Would you sell your own fingers for £10 each? I think it's very fair to say that any person ever would value their own fingers more than £10.

Exactly. This is just "revealed preferences" that can be ordered.

Lots of things in philosophy might have debatable rigor, but this in particular isn't one of them.

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#95

Post by hgomersall » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 1:42 PM UTC

jjk166 wrote: post #52

The problem here stems from trying to have some universal utility values for acts. You can't say cutting off a finger is fundamentally worse than losing 10 pounds, even if it frequently would be. I wouldn't give up one of my fingers for 10 pounds, and I think most sane people wouldn't either, but here the mugger is willing to do that. So in this particular instance, the mugger is valuing the utility of keeping his fi…

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.

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#96

Post by hgomersall » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 1:45 PM UTC

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.

It's not at all detached. People are manipulative all the time, including using themselves to reduce overall utility. Emotional blackmail is a name given to one variety of this.

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#97

Post by uKVZe85V » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 2:26 PM UTC

Fun fact: I asked ChatGPT to help me translate that to French for private use, pasting there the first part of the conversation.

It started answering, then within seconds my question was replaced with "This content may violate our content policy. If you believe this to be in error, please submit your feedback — your input will aid our research in this area."

Then, seconds after, the still-appearing answer was replaced with the same message.

Doh! The content filter got tripped because "obviously" it's not a philosophical thought experiment about utilitarianism but an evil text about mugging someone, which is an illegal activity. What a time to be alive!

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#98

Post by gs17 » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 4:05 PM UTC

ertgbnm wrote: post #26

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. Clear…

> 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.

Yes, the mugger removing his own finger, in Bentham's words, would "prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness", assuming the mugger is going to continue a life of crime where fingers help him. If the mugger was a pediatric surgeon who was performing a one-time theft (and we can trust him to never do it again) to get some quick cash on his way to work it might work. It doesn't resolve what the money was originally for, but at least that finger could be as important as your medicine.

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#99

Post by ertgbnm » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 4:25 PM UTC

gs17 wrote: post #98

ertgbnm wrote: post #26

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. Clear…

> 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. Yes, the mugger removing his own finger, in Bentham…

Yeah, but now we are in rather hilarious territory. Act Utilitarians can be taken advantage of by deontologist pediatric surgeons, but only once per surgeon per utilitarian. Much less of a gotcha than the original formulation of Bentham's Mugging.

Re: Bentham's Mugging (2022)

#100

Post by jjk166 » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 5:59 PM UTC

hgomersall wrote: post #95

jjk166 wrote: post #52

The problem here stems from trying to have some universal utility values for acts. You can't say cutting off a finger is fundamentally worse than losing 10 pounds, even if it frequently would be. I wouldn't give up one of my fingers for 10 pounds, and I think most sane people wouldn't either, but here the mugger is willing to do that. So in this particular instance, the mugger is valuing the utility of keeping his fi…

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, but in this imaginary scenario where a person would actually be willing to cut off their own fingers simply because they have not gained £10, it no longer holds true.