Hmm, I might be misunderstanding you, so let me know if this doesn’t respond to what you have in mind.
I don’t think I’ve assumed any intervention is definitely positive in the long run. I have assumed they are each net positive in expectation for at least one set of targets (or types of effects) we can identify ahead of time (just humans, just farmed animals or just wild animal).
I guess I didn’t specify how far these sets of targets go into the future, so you could assume I’m ignoring far future moral patients, or we can extend the example to include them, with interventions positive in expectation for some sets of far future targets.
The example is just illustrative, so I didn’t want to complicate it with more than 3 sets of targets.
If you are not assuming the longterm effects, the intervals below are only for shorttermish effects. (this is what I got from your comment, correct please if It’s wrong)
H=[100,200]×[−300,50]×[−50,50]
Isn’t one of the main problems brought by deep moral uncertinity is about how an intervention itself is benefical for the target group or not?
An intervention effects far future. Far future effect is generally more important than short term effects. So even if our short therm analysis shows the intervention was beneficial it doesn’t mean in aggregate it is net positive. Thus we don’t know the impact of the intervention.
I believe this was the one of the main problems of moral uncertinity/cluenessness. What I don’t get is how the model can solve moral uncertinity if it does not takes far longterm effects into account.
I guess I didn’t specify how far these sets of targets go into the future, so you could assume I’m ignoring far future moral patients, or we can extend the example to include them, with interventions positive in expectation for some sets of far future targets.
Is the bolded part even possible? Is there interventions that are highly likely to be positive for the target group in the very far future?
P.S: Thank you for responding my comment this fast even if the post is 5 years old :)
Hmm, I might be misunderstanding you, so let me know if this doesn’t respond to what you have in mind.
I don’t think I’ve assumed any intervention is definitely positive in the long run. I have assumed they are each net positive in expectation for at least one set of targets (or types of effects) we can identify ahead of time (just humans, just farmed animals or just wild animal).
I guess I didn’t specify how far these sets of targets go into the future, so you could assume I’m ignoring far future moral patients, or we can extend the example to include them, with interventions positive in expectation for some sets of far future targets.
The example is just illustrative, so I didn’t want to complicate it with more than 3 sets of targets.
I think you didn’t misunderstand me.
If you are not assuming the longterm effects, the intervals below are only for shorttermish effects. (this is what I got from your comment, correct please if It’s wrong)
H=[100,200]×[−300,50]×[−50,50]
Isn’t one of the main problems brought by deep moral uncertinity is about how an intervention itself is benefical for the target group or not?
An intervention effects far future. Far future effect is generally more important than short term effects. So even if our short therm analysis shows the intervention was beneficial it doesn’t mean in aggregate it is net positive. Thus we don’t know the impact of the intervention.
I believe this was the one of the main problems of moral uncertinity/cluenessness. What I don’t get is how the model can solve moral uncertinity if it does not takes far longterm effects into account.
Is the bolded part even possible? Is there interventions that are highly likely to be positive for the target group in the very far future?
P.S: Thank you for responding my comment this fast even if the post is 5 years old :)