Yet Another "Axiom" Question

[HedCec]

I completely understand that you might feel this way. I even think that from an emotianal perspective most people (possibly even me) might agree. The point I am trying to make however, is that logically we must answer yes, because in the question it is already stipulated that we prefer this option.

Maybe this becomes a bit clearer if you instead assume that mankind will become sterile immediately. Since it is a fact that we will become happier from this new procedure, this must mean that the value of the having the procedure done is higher than any discomfort we may feel from being sterile (otherwise we would not become happier). So regardless of how bad you think it would be to become sterile, it is a fact that the procedure (whatever it is) is something that is worth more to you, otherwise it would not make you happy.

The logical fallacy that I think people are making here is:
1.First are informed that there is something that will make everyone happier.
2.Then you are informed about one of the negative side effect.
3. Then you start trying to judge if the (to put it in poker terms) happiness H minus sorrow S from being sterile is positive EV or not.

This is where you make your logical error. The induced sorrow has already been taken into account in the happiness H. If it had not, the statement that this procedure will make everybody happier would not be true. The question is asked under the assumption that answering yes is +EV, and answering no is not.

[josh_x]

[ QUOTE ]
The induced sorrow has already been taken into account in the happiness H. If it had not, the statement that this procedure will make everybody happier would not be true. The question is asked under the assumption that answering yes is +EV, and answering no is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what i think

[HedCec]

It is already a given fact that this never can be a sucker bet. The fact is, it makes us happier. Whatever the downside is, it is already given that the positive effects are worth more to everybody. If this wasn't true, people wouldn't become happier from having this procedure done.

The downside is completely irrelevant, and it does not matter if it is:
you may never drink wine again
your mother will be killed
George W. Bush will be president for eternity
you will never win a poker hand again
you will be killed tomorrow

The downside may be any or all of the above, and the correct answer still must be yes ...

[gwhiz_612]

[ QUOTE ]
.

Suppose there was some scientific procedure that could be implemented that would make everyone on Earth live for five hundred years . There is only one downside.

500 years from now all humans will become sterile. Nor can they be cloned. Humanity ends about 100 years later. Should the procedure be done? If yes, how much smaller than 500 would you accept? If no, how much greater than 500 would be OK? Also if you answered no only because you think God would be angry, what would your answer be if he assured you he wouldn't be?

[/ QUOTE ] I think this makes it more interesting. If we were able to choose the same result with the terms being that we would stop aging for 500 years after the scientific procedure. A whole lot more people would be inclined to agree on this. IMO

[HedCec]

Aside from this question being a locigal fallacy that obviously many people seems to fall into, it is very interesting for other reasons:

1. People tend to say no to this question. They decide that it simply isn't worth it (which as I've already explained of course is logically wrong).
2. In real life we are screaming yes to this question, but in this case we have no guarantee that doing so actually will make us happier.

The analogoy I see with real life is that we with increasing speed destroy our environment (for a happiness that is not in any way guaranteed!!), and the idea that man kind may become sterile in 500 years does not seem very far fetched (many species of fish are becoming sterile because of all estrogen-like contaminations).

We really are part of a stupid species ...

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Aside from this question being a locigal fallacy that obviously many people seems to fall into, it is very interesting for other reasons:

1. People tend to say no to this question. They decide that it simply isn't worth it (which as I've already explained of course is logically wrong).

The analogoy I see with real life is that we with increasing speed destroy our environment (for a happiness that is not in any way guaranteed!!), and the idea that man kind may become sterile in 500 years does not seem very far fetched (many species of fish are becoming sterile because of all estrogen-like contaminations).

We really are part of a stupid species ...

[/ QUOTE ]
The logical fallacy you are harping on about is just a misinterpretation on your part of what DS is asking (oh the irony).

Which is besides the point I suppose because its not a logical fallacy. I may well choose not to do something that would make me happier if I did it and that I know would make me happier if I did it. e.g I may refuse a machine that gives me a sustainable morphine high. [the logical fallacy is when people talk of prefering the choice they don't prefer]

[ QUOTE ]
2. In real life we are screaming yes to this question, but in this case we have no guarantee that doing so actually will make us happier.

[/ QUOTE ]
No we aren't. At least I'm not, you may be.

chez

[HedCec]

First of all, if you think I have misinterpreted something (which I of course very well may have done), could you please inform me how or in what way? You saying so doesn't help much.

Second of all, your example about getting a morphine high is not an example of anything. Why would you ever not choose to hook yourself up to this machine if you thought it would give you the most happiness? You claim that you wouldn't, and I simply don't believe it. In case you don't hook yourself up to this machine, I think it can only be because you actually don't think it will give you the most happiness (i.e. you find some negative value in becoming a drug addict).

The simple fact is that it is given in this question what option people actually prefer, and for some reason you seem to find it difficult to choose this option.

It seems you have missed the point completely.

You write "the logical fallacy is when people talk of prefering the choice they don't prefer", which is exactly what is happening here. One choice will make them happier than the other. Obviously people "prefer" the option that will give them the most happiness (please don't even start trying to argue this, because even if you like hurting yourself, and therefore take an option that deliberately hurts you, you do this because you find happiness from being hurt).

Regarding #2, where you wrote "No we aren't. At least I'm not, you may be.":
Obviously you are using a computer (which is packed with different toxic substances that eventually will end up in your body to some extent).
Your computer uses electricity (which pushes us all nicely closer to global warming).
I guess you at some point have used a car, boat, airplane ... I hope you get the drift.
So without a doubt are you choosing to contribute to this problem (just as I am), unless you claim that you remove as much or more toxic substances from our environment than you put in it.

If you (as I expect) still don't agree with me, could you please try to make an argument, instead of simply writing your opinion? That way this debate actually may get somewhere, and you might even change my mind (or your own).

[HedCec]

agree completely ... but you probably already knew that :-)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]

First of all, if you think I have misinterpreted something (which I of course very well may have done), could you please inform me how or in what way? You saying so doesn't help much.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you think DS is asking if you prefer to do what you prefer to do then you've wrong. I'll leave DS to exlain why if he wants to. Or he could say that that is the exciting question he was posing [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Second of all, your example about getting a morphine high is not an example of anything. Why would you ever not choose to hook yourself up to this machine if you thought it would give you the most happiness? You claim that you wouldn't, and I simply don't believe it. In case you don't hook yourself up to this machine, I think it can only be because you actually don't think it will give you the most happiness (i.e. you find some negative value in becoming a drug addict).

The simple fact is that it is given in this question what option people actually prefer, and for some reason you seem to find it difficult to choose this option.

[/ QUOTE ]
You may not believe it but it proves your logical fallacy wasn't. I believe many people would refuse it for the same reason they wouldn't all rush out and get frontal lobotomies if it was proven that being lobotimised would made them happy.

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding #2, where you wrote "No we aren't. At least I'm not, you may be.":
Obviously you are using a computer (which is packed with different toxic substances that eventually will end up in your body to some extent).
Your computer uses electricity (which pushes us all nicely closer to global warming).
I guess you at some point have used a car, boat, airplane ... I hope you get the drift.
So without a doubt are you choosing to contribute to this problem (just as I am), unless you claim that you remove as much or more toxic substances from our environment than you put in it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that the best way to look after future generations is for all of us to stop doing anything? people like me using computers etc has led and will continue to lead to innovations from which future generations will benefit greatly.

chez

[HedCec]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

First of all, if you think I have misinterpreted something (which I of course very well may have done), could you please inform me how or in what way? You saying so doesn't help much.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you think DS is asking if you prefer to do what you prefer to do then you've wrong. I'll leave DS to exlain why if he wants to. Or he could say that that is the exciting question he was posing [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. No help from you in describing what is misinterpreted then.
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Second of all, your example about getting a morphine high is not an example of anything. Why would you ever not choose to hook yourself up to this machine if you thought it would give you the most happiness? You claim that you wouldn't, and I simply don't believe it. In case you don't hook yourself up to this machine, I think it can only be because you actually don't think it will give you the most happiness (i.e. you find some negative value in becoming a drug addict).

The simple fact is that it is given in this question what option people actually prefer, and for some reason you seem to find it difficult to choose this option.

[/ QUOTE ]
You may not believe it but it proves your logical fallacy wasn't. I believe many people would refuse it for the same reason they wouldn't all rush out and get frontal lobotomies if it was proven that being lobotimised would made them happy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really can't understand what it is that you have such huge trouble understanding. Of course people would and should get a lobotomy if they thought it would increase their happiness. If you actually believe that you would be happier with a lobotomy, then what would your argument be for not getting it?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Regarding #2, where you wrote "No we aren't. At least I'm not, you may be.":
Obviously you are using a computer (which is packed with different toxic substances that eventually will end up in your body to some extent).
Your computer uses electricity (which pushes us all nicely closer to global warming).
I guess you at some point have used a car, boat, airplane ... I hope you get the drift.
So without a doubt are you choosing to contribute to this problem (just as I am), unless you claim that you remove as much or more toxic substances from our environment than you put in it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that the best way to look after future generations is for all of us to stop doing anything? people like me using computers etc has led and will continue to lead to innovations from which future generations will benefit greatly.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I really don't think that any part of my argument is anywhere near rocket science, but you make me wonder ... I will make one last attempt to explain this.

1. People have invented and used a bunch of stuff through history.
2. People are using this stuff because they see some benefit from using it.
3. So far, almost without exception, the inventions made have some negative long term side effects that eventually will make the earth inhabitable to people.
4. For the last generation of people living on earth, I very much doubt that they will agree with you that all the benefits previous generations gained from the inventions was worth the cost.
5. You are using the inventions, which makes you a part of the problem (and me).
6. I am not saying that the best way to look after future generations is to stop doing anything. I am only saying that it at least must be a better alternative for future generations if we were to do nothing than to do what we are currently doing. The very reason you and me can drive our car and burn oil, is that previous generations have not already used it up; instead they have done nothing regarding this, and left it all for us to use.
7. Please give one example of one invention from which future generations will benefit greatly. I certainly can't think of any such invention, but I can easily put down almost all our inventions as things from which future generations eventually will loose their possibility of living on earth.