Hardcore utilitarians can endorse a norm that says “don’t commit fraud” because they think such a norm will have better consequences than an alternative norm that says “generally don’t commit fraud unless it seems like it could achieve more good than harm”.
The former norm is likely to avoid instances of fraud, which isn’t only good because fraud can lead to bad PR, but also because a society with widespread fraud is unlikely to be a pleasant one.
So I do think hardcore utilitarians can be justified in condemning fraud in the strongest possible terms, although I accept one could debate this point.
taking that seriously: wouldn’t it be the best for EA, to officially say that any fraud is bad (thus getting good PR), but at the same time internally looking away, thus not to be forced to see fraud?
taking that seriously: wouldn’t it be the best for EA, to officially say that any fraud is bad (thus getting good PR), but at the same time internally looking away, thus not to be forced to see fraud?
Would still using the money already be that?
This is a perfect example of Goodhart’s law. More specifically, assuming you don’t value fraud or lying (in a moral anti-realist framework), not seeing fraud or lying does not equal no fraud or lying is occuring.
This is a thermonuclear idea bound to fail due to Extremal Goodhart.
Hardcore utilitarians can endorse a norm that says “don’t commit fraud” because they think such a norm will have better consequences than an alternative norm that says “generally don’t commit fraud unless it seems like it could achieve more good than harm”.
The former norm is likely to avoid instances of fraud, which isn’t only good because fraud can lead to bad PR, but also because a society with widespread fraud is unlikely to be a pleasant one.
So I do think hardcore utilitarians can be justified in condemning fraud in the strongest possible terms, although I accept one could debate this point.
Good point
taking that seriously: wouldn’t it be the best for EA, to officially say that any fraud is bad (thus getting good PR), but at the same time internally looking away, thus not to be forced to see fraud?
Would still using the money already be that?
This is a perfect example of Goodhart’s law. More specifically, assuming you don’t value fraud or lying (in a moral anti-realist framework), not seeing fraud or lying does not equal no fraud or lying is occuring.
This is a thermonuclear idea bound to fail due to Extremal Goodhart.