Hacker News Reader

Comment by InsideOutSanta | Hacker News Reader

The article mentions that issue in passing ("I reject the claim that no number of mild bads can add up to be as bad as a single thing that’s very bad, as do many philosophers"), but I don't understand the actual argument behind this assertion.

Personally, I believe that you can't just add up mildly bad things and create a very bad thing. For example, I'd rather get my finger pricked by a needle once a day for the rest of my life than have somebody amputate my legs without anesthesia just once, even though the "cumulative pain" of the former choice might be higher than that of the latter.

Having said that, I also believe that there is sufficient evidence that shrimp suffer greatly when they are killed in the manner described in the article, and that it is worthwhile to prevent that suffering.

View on HN

Their point isn't that it's merely "worthwhile," but that donating to Sudanese refugees is a waste of money because 1 starving child = 80 starving shrimp, or whatever their ghoulish and horrific math says.

>donating to Sudanese refugees is a waste of money

Donating to Sudanese refugees sounds like a great use of money. Certainly not a waste.

Suboptimal isn't the same as wasteful. Suppose you sit down to eat a great meal at a restaurant. As you walk out, you realize that you could have gotten an even better meal for the same price at the restaurant next door. That doesn't mean you just wasted your money.

>ghoulish and horrific math

It's not the math that's horrific, it's the world we live in that's horrific. The math just helps us alleviate the horror better.

Researcher: "Here's my study which shows that a new medication reduces the incidence of incredibly painful kidney stones by 50%." Journal editorial board: "We refuse to publish this ghoulish and horrific math."

It's not a waste as another commenter noted, just probably not the best use of money.

I agree this is unintuitive, but I submit that's because of speceisism. What about shrimp makes it so that tens of millions of them painfully dying is less bad than a single human death? It doesn't seem like the fact that they aren't smart makes their extreme agony less bad (the badness of a headache doesn't depend on how smart you are).

How much of your posting is sophistry? I assume this isn't (I doubt this increases the positivity of the perception of EA), but the God stuff makes very close to no sense at all.

If it's sophistry anyway, can't you take Eliezer's position and say God doesn't exist, and some CEV like system is better than Bentham style utilitarianism because there's not an objective morality?

I don't think CEV makes much sense, but I think you're scoring far less points that you think you are even relative to something like that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com