Yet Another "Axiom" Question

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Unlike to non-existence where no harm is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ll buy this argument relative to contraception. But I don’t get where you don’t think a fetus has more chance of becoming a human being if left un-aborted than some unknown, theoretical, potential-to-be-born-500-years-from-now human being.

[joda mas]

We are gamblers, so we don’t take the deal. We are optimistic to a fault. Why take a deal that will make us X% happier if there is a trade off. We all know that as soon as we take this deal, something better will come along without any tradeoff. By taking this deal, we may be losing the potential for a much better deal.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that Humans often make decisions out of obligation even though they are worse off in every conceivable way, and would be happier by any measure if they made the opposite decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

even if we judge them to be in hindsight, they don't expect to be "worse off" when they make the decision.

[ QUOTE ]
A better example, that I heard about today. The Congressional Medal of Honor was posthumously awarded to a soldier who threw himself on a grenade to save his buddies. Interesting factoid -- the news report said that over 50% of Medals of Honor are awarded posthumously. (I've seen similar statistics for the Victoria Cross).

The people who throw themselves on grenades, are sacrificing their lives. They would be better off and happier if they didn't make this kind of sacrifice. Yet, history is replete with individuals who make such selfless acts.

These sacrifices are, IMO, not driven by the fear of guilt that would arise for the opposite decision. They are, selfless acts of sacrifice. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

you haven't really argued for you point, you're just telling me it's self-evident, period.

maybe someone sacrificing himself is maximizing his expected happiness in the next 30 seconds rather than the next 30 years. people (including myself) do this sort of thing all the time, it doesn't mean we're not trying to maximize our happiness. maybe his decision is motivated by the possibility of reward in the hereafter. maybe he expected to die in the very near future anyway. maybe he had to decide so quickly that he didn't have time to think about whether he would prefer to sacrifice himself or not and acted entirely on instinct.

the only way you're going to be able to "prove me wrong" is to show that when people use the word "happiness" they're talking about something that doesn't "motivate all their preferences."

[SplawnDarts]

Sounds like a demonic bargain, not in the religious sense, but in the sense of exchanging sort term happiness for eternal destruction. There is no N that would cause me to accept the deal.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a demonic bargain, not in the religious sense, but in the sense of exchanging sort term happiness for eternal destruction. There is no N that would cause me to accept the deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is exactly the issue - can we think and talk in such terms (also, a “Faustian Bargain” as KenProspero termed it) outside of a religious context? Why do we feel that this would be wrong to do to folk 500 years from now?

Most of us are repulsed by the thought of screwing our “fellow” humans. Yet, it seems illogical to me not to make the deal. Why is that?

[David Sklansky]

When I said the procedure would make everyone far happier, I should have added "except possibly not because of the 500 year consequences". In other words I meant for that downside to have the ability to negate the happiness (or satisfaction or whatever you want to call it) in some people. Otherwise the question is trivial.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that Humans often make decisions out of obligation even though they are worse off in every conceivable way, and would be happier by any measure if they made the opposite decision.

A better example, that I heard about today. The Congressional Medal of Honor was posthumously awarded to a soldier who threw himself on a grenade to save his buddies. Interesting factoid -- the news report said that over 50% of Medals of Honor are awarded posthumously. (I've seen similar statistics for the Victoria Cross).

The people who throw themselves on grenades, are sacrificing their lives. They would be better off and happier if they didn't make this kind of sacrifice. Yet, history is replete with individuals who make such selfless acts.

These sacrifices are, IMO, not driven by the fear of guilt that would arise for the opposite decision. They are, selfless acts of sacrifice. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people who throw themselves on grenades actually just slipped.

[SplawnDarts]

There's also the twilight zone-esque idea that doing something to make people happy often doesn't really make them happy in the long run. I realize that that's not part of Slansky's question as stated, because it breaks the deadlock between producing good for various different people, but I think it needs to be considered. No matter what guarantees were given, I would be suspicious of the bargain from that perspective as well.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
When I said the procedure would make everyone far happier, I should have added "except possibly not because of the 500 year consequences". In other words I meant for that downside to have the ability to negate the happiness (or satisfaction or whatever you want to call it) in some people. Otherwise the question is trivial.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean we would still have the potential for “guilt’ after we accept the bargain (assuming it bothers us at all before)? That type of notion?

The question is not trivial with or without this caveat. The original point of the question might become trivial to you, but the question is profound written either way. In other words, written either way, the decision is made prior to the “happiness” and should not be taken lightly.

Assuming the “guilt’ can still occur after the deal, then the only folk it should affect are those closing in on the 500 year mark. If the decision is correct now it should be correct 400 years from now. Within 100 years or so of the “end“, then “guilt” might have a reason to rear its head. Not until then, though.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
There's also the twilight zone-esque idea that doing something to make people happy often doesn't really make them happy in the long run. I realize that that's not part of Slansky's question as stated, because it breaks the deadlock between producing good for various different people, but I think it needs to be considered. No matter what guarantees were given, I would be suspicious of the bargain from that perspective as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but I don't think that is what the OP had in mind. Maybe I am way off, but I don't think the original question is meant to be tricky. I could wrong though.