This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yes, people have tried using all sorts of explanations. The existence of counterarguments doesn't automatically make the original argument wrong. This is especially true when my argument was less "in theory the repugnant conclusion is wrong" and more "In practice the repugnant conclusion seems highly unlikely to ever be relevant or useful." I feel like the Repugnant Conclusion, more than any other thought experiment, directly leads people to make conclusions about real life, and this is highly unwarranted. Whether you think it's true or not has very very little to do with whether the current population of the earth should be increased or decreased.
Still, to the extent that I must pick a repugnant conclusion, the repugnant conclusion seems far more correct than the other conclusions. See Magic9Mushroom's comment on astralcodexten:
If you don't endorse the repugnant conclusion, which of those do you endorse? I'd ordinarily be very sympathetic to arguments along the lines of "all of these thought experiments are just thought experiments, and real ethics in the real world must be more practical" but you're the one trying to constrain me into endorsing a highly theoretical thought experiment, so I expect you to have some kind of answer here, or a good reason why these 29 philosophers are wrong.
Here's another good article, responding to what Scott wrote on the subject. In short, utilitarian attempts to "dodge" one of these conclusions seem to lead to either obvious contradictions or to even worse repugnant conclusions.
The "this is why utilitarianism sucks" conclusion.
Counterarguments and reductio ad absurdum don't work that way.
If I say "your reasoning implies that all left-handers should be executed", it's not a valid reply to say "well, I'll never be in a position where I have a chance to execute any left-handers". A valid principle applies even to situations that are logically consistent but can't actually happen.
If utilitarianism has any value at all, and it does, it's important to decide what flavor of utilitarianism is most correct. The best way to do that is by taking it to extremes, deciding which extreme sounds most correct, and then extrapolating from there back to normal actually relevant morality. This is because deciding whether to create 1 happy person or increase someone's standard of living by 1% may not be intuitively clear, but imo the answer to the impossibility theorem is pretty clear, and that can inform our decisions on more proximate questions, though it shouldn't determine them.
I'm not a pure utilitarian--I'd probably be closest to being an ethical intuitionist--but I think we can hone our ethical intuitions by being knowledgeable and consistent about other theories of morality. So I don't think you should just dismiss the thought experiment entirely.
Let me be more clear:
The universe is not designed such that the Repugnant Conclusion will ever matter
If it were, then my moral beliefs would be different than they are.
If my reasoning implies that both left-handers should be executed, and also that left-handers don't exist, "I'll never be in a position to execute left-handers" absolutely is a valid response to any complaints against the "left-handers should be executed" conclusion. Any scenario where I'm convinced that left-handers do exist is also one where I rethink whether they should be executed. Our moral beliefs are shaped by reality, so my beliefs about reality are relevant to my moral beliefs.
If you look at what I actually said though, I never said the repugnant conclusion etc. was totally irrelevant, just that it was mostly irrelevant. I did answer your question pretty quickly. The repugnant conclusion just seems particularly nefarious to me because people take it way beyond where any thought experiment should be taken, directly porting conclusions back to reality despite the numerous differences between the hypothetical and reality.
If your reasoning implies that left-handers don't exist because the concept is logically impossible, you don't have to care whether it tells you to execute them. But there's a difference between "it's logically impossible" and "it doesn't exist in practice".
Sure. My original response did include:
So I feel I was pretty clear about my position.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link