Right, but utilitarianism has a lower bar for deciding that means are justifiable than other ethical views do (things just need to be overall net positive, even if means are extremely harmful).
I think these weaknesses of utilitarianism and deontology are useful and given that EA contains lots of utilitarians / is closer to utilitarianism than common sense ethics / is watered down utilitarianism, I think it’s good for EAs to keep the major weaknesses of utilitarianism at the front of their minds.
Right, but utilitarianism has a lower bar for deciding that means are justifiable than other ethical views do (things just need to be overall net positive, even if means are extremely harmful).
Claiming this as a “weakness” of utilitarianism needs justification, and I stridently disagree with characterizing EA utilitarianism as “watered down.” It is well-thought-through and nuanced.
A weakness in the sense that it severely contradicts our intuitions on morality and severely violates other moral systems, because under classical total utilitarianism this would not only justify fraud to donate to AI safety, it would justify violence against AI companies too.
(I understand that not everyone agrees that violating moral intuitions makes a moral system weaker, but I don’t want to debate that because I don’t think there’s much point in rehashing existing work on meta-ethics).
I mean that EA is watered-down classical utilitarianism.
I don’t think that’s bad because classical utilitarianism would support committing fraud to give more money to AI safety, especially with short AI timelines. And my understanding is that the consensus in EA is that we should not commit fraud.
Right, but utilitarianism has a lower bar for deciding that means are justifiable than other ethical views do (things just need to be overall net positive, even if means are extremely harmful).
I think these weaknesses of utilitarianism and deontology are useful and given that EA contains lots of utilitarians / is closer to utilitarianism than common sense ethics / is watered down utilitarianism, I think it’s good for EAs to keep the major weaknesses of utilitarianism at the front of their minds.
Claiming this as a “weakness” of utilitarianism needs justification, and I stridently disagree with characterizing EA utilitarianism as “watered down.” It is well-thought-through and nuanced.
A weakness in the sense that it severely contradicts our intuitions on morality and severely violates other moral systems, because under classical total utilitarianism this would not only justify fraud to donate to AI safety, it would justify violence against AI companies too.
(I understand that not everyone agrees that violating moral intuitions makes a moral system weaker, but I don’t want to debate that because I don’t think there’s much point in rehashing existing work on meta-ethics).
I mean that EA is watered-down classical utilitarianism.
I don’t think that’s bad because classical utilitarianism would support committing fraud to give more money to AI safety, especially with short AI timelines. And my understanding is that the consensus in EA is that we should not commit fraud.