This is certainly not the best of all possible worlds.
Notice that this evil 3-person model universe shall become an even more evil 2-person model universe once Lazarus dies (his corpse will almost certainly be digested by the machine of the evil artist). (*)
We can only assume that Dives will go after Alice next...(o)
But what does the turkey have to say about all this? Can we really ignore her utility function? (x)
(*) So we know that at least the 3-person model universe was not the worst of all possible worlds (because the horrors of the 2-person world to follow are even worse).
(o) As if this were not enough, keep in mind that in the multiverse of all possible worlds this model will be realized many times (and perhaps an infinite number of times!).
(x) Do we know if the turkey perhaps prefers to be part of an art project rather than just another meal?
Blog Archive
12 comments:
Certain mathematically minded economists would like to delegate questions of morality to simple mathematical ideas - like Pareto Optimality.
Bad idea, as Cosma's example demos.
Notice that the main actors within the 3-person world have a very different morality from us 'outside observers'; being indifferent to the death of 1/3 of the population.
Also notice that it never occurs to Alice that she could maximize her profit by selling the turkey to the artist and some potatoes to Lazarus...
In a modern economy Lazarus would get a sub-prime loan and leverage his dime 10000:1
and after eating the turkey, lazarus would then default on this loan, plunging the 3-person world into a global crisis and finally he would occupy the home of the artist to express his anger...
In his latest book, David Deutsch claims that moral judgments justified using factual explanations are superior to moral judgments justified using explanations containing falsehoods. I wonder how that applies here?
Lee,
I sometimes wonder if there are moral judgements which are self-evident (and thus somehow universal, independent of culture etc.).
e.g. It seems that honesty is a prerequisite for many endeavors, e.g. science. (But of course, one could question the morality of those endeavors.)
But can I doubt that at the very least I should be honest to myself?
Could this be the starting point for 'self evident morality' - at least to some extent?
e.g. I could make the argument that it is easier to be honest with myself if I am honest in general.
I wonder how far one could go with this...
In the case of Lazarus, is it self-evident that I should help him because the death of a person always reduces the thoughts we can think?
"I sometimes wonder if there are moral judgements which are self-evident (and thus somehow universal, independent of culture etc.)"
I think Deutsch thinks there are. He writes, "The truth has structural unity as well as logical consistency, and I guess that no true explanation is entirely disconnected from any other. Since the universe is explicable, it must be that morally right values are connected in this way with true factual theories, and morally wrong values with false theories."
That's not intuitively obvious to me, but he's a hell of a lot smarter than I am, so who am I to argue?
>>I think Deutsch thinks there are
Very interesting; what book or paper did you read where he says that?
do you refer to The Beginning of Infinity?
If yes, is it a good book in general?
btw, did you get the Nature of Computability (and if yes how did you like it)?
Yes, the quote is from page 121 of the “The Beginning of Infinity.”
Is it a good book in general? I’m only half way through it, but I can say he presents some pretty interesting ideas. His main idea is that explanations are a fundamental part of the universe and that they cause change. Based on the virtual image I have of you, I think it’s a book that you might find interesting. That said, at least twice I’ve thrown the book down in disgust thinking, “this is philosophy and it’s crap and I’m not going to waste my time on it anymore. “ It is a philosophy book and as such it seems to me that part of the goal is to obfuscate simple ideas. I do notice that I keep thinking about those ideas though and after some period of time I pick up the book and start reading again, I suppose in an effort to waste my time some more.
I did buy “The Nature of Computation.” I’m only on chapter 6, but I think that it’s amazing that they can explain important ideas in computational complexity in a way that I can understand. I’m really glad you recommended it. I think I first saw Deutsch’s books advertised on Amazon’s “Nature of Computation” webpage and ordered them at the same time. It makes me think that Amazon knows what they’re doing when it comes to selling to consumers.
Post a Comment