Executive summary: The author argues that, despite strong contrary intuitions, a sufficiently large number of very mild harms (like dust specks) is worse than a single extreme harm (like torture), and that rejecting this leads to more implausible commitments.
Key points:
The author claims critics misrepresent the “torture vs. dust specks” view by ignoring the underlying arguments, noting that several non-utilitarian philosophers also accept the conclusion.
The spectrum argument suggests that repeatedly trading a slightly less intense harm for vastly more instances leads, via replacement and transitivity, to the conclusion that many tiny harms can outweigh one severe harm.
Rejecting the replacement principle requires implausible commitments, such as that no number of slightly weaker pains can outweigh a stronger one even when scaled massively in number or duration.
Rejecting transitivity leads to further problems, including violations of dominance, vulnerability to money pumps, and counterintuitive implications about rational choice.
When principles conflict with case intuitions, the author argues we should generally trust broad principles over specific intuitions, since human intuitions are fallible and principles apply across many cases.
A risk-based argument (following Huemer) suggests that preventing many small harms is preferable to extremely tiny chances of preventing severe harm, which implies that sufficiently many small harms can outweigh a severe one.
A simple argument claims that infinitely many mild pains would be infinitely bad, while intense pain is not, implying that infinite mild pains are worse than one intense pain unless one accepts implausible views about infinite badness.
The author argues that opposition to the conclusion is driven by scope neglect, as humans systematically underestimate large quantities and therefore misjudge the cumulative badness of many small harms.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The author argues that, despite strong contrary intuitions, a sufficiently large number of very mild harms (like dust specks) is worse than a single extreme harm (like torture), and that rejecting this leads to more implausible commitments.
Key points:
The author claims critics misrepresent the “torture vs. dust specks” view by ignoring the underlying arguments, noting that several non-utilitarian philosophers also accept the conclusion.
The spectrum argument suggests that repeatedly trading a slightly less intense harm for vastly more instances leads, via replacement and transitivity, to the conclusion that many tiny harms can outweigh one severe harm.
Rejecting the replacement principle requires implausible commitments, such as that no number of slightly weaker pains can outweigh a stronger one even when scaled massively in number or duration.
Rejecting transitivity leads to further problems, including violations of dominance, vulnerability to money pumps, and counterintuitive implications about rational choice.
When principles conflict with case intuitions, the author argues we should generally trust broad principles over specific intuitions, since human intuitions are fallible and principles apply across many cases.
A risk-based argument (following Huemer) suggests that preventing many small harms is preferable to extremely tiny chances of preventing severe harm, which implies that sufficiently many small harms can outweigh a severe one.
A simple argument claims that infinitely many mild pains would be infinitely bad, while intense pain is not, implying that infinite mild pains are worse than one intense pain unless one accepts implausible views about infinite badness.
The author argues that opposition to the conclusion is driven by scope neglect, as humans systematically underestimate large quantities and therefore misjudge the cumulative badness of many small harms.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.