From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Thu Dec 24 1998 - 10:39:50 MST
I think that both consequentialist and axiomatic analyses should be
performed on any proposal. If the consequentialist outcome claims a
positive and axiomatic analysis claims a negative, then don't do it. If
the consequentialist claims a negative and the axiomatic analyses claims
a positive, then obviously don't do it. This is the translation of two
simple rules that have been justified by experience:
1. The ends don't justify the means. This rule is forced on us by our
inability to correctly evaluate the value or probability of the ends.
2. Don't be impractical. Too many people have followed their
principles off a cliff.
One last word remains, about the difference between "negative" and
"positive". People continuing to be poor is not a negative, especially
if there's no consequentially valid way to make them rich. People
becoming poorer is a negative. Violating property rights is an
axiomatic negative.
Libertarianism has the tremendous advantage that axiomatic analyses can
produce negative or neutral results but not positive results, since
people have violable freedoms but not fulfilable entitlements.
Libertarians thus don't need to worry about so much about rule B. This
is why libertarianism works so well compared to most other systems.
--
sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
http://pobox.com/~sentience/AI_design.temp.html
http://pobox.com/~sentience/sing_analysis.html
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified, I'm not telling you
everything I think I know.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:05 MST