Re: Infinite utility (was: Re: Pascal's Wager)

From: Nick Bostrom (bostrom@ndirect.co.uk)
Date: Wed Dec 09 1998 - 21:31:41 MST


Robin Hanson wrote:

> Flipping the argument around, anyone who doesn't choose their actions
> soley on how it influences the chance for eternal bliss *does*
> discount future benefits. Thus the vast majority of people do
> discount the future.

Yes, that was what I suggested too. The problem that I was concerned
with, however, was not for decision theory as such, but for a certain
ethical theory, utilitarianism (and possibly for one theory of
personal identity as well). It seems wrong to say that in an
infinite universe there would be nothing morally wrong with torturing
innocent people for a little fun (especially considering that our
universe probably really is infinite, according to recent data). Yet,
on the standard version of utilitarianism, an action is good if and
only if it maximizes total expected utility (where every equally
sentient being counts for equally much). So such torture would be a
good action on that theory, since it maximizes utility (like all
other actions). So this version of utilitarianism gives an
unacceptable result. That problem is that when you decide to give
everybody's well-being the same weight, then discount factors won't
remove the infinity.

One remedy that one might attempt (which I mentioned in my reply to
Dan) would be to extend standard decision theory in the following
way. In order to determine whether an action A is right:

1. For each action, calculate how likely it would be that it would
lead to an infinite amount of utility (x%) and how likely it would
lead to an infinite amount of negative utility (y%). If x - y is
greater for some other action than for A, then A is wrong. If not, go
to step 2.

2. Disregard all the outcomes where there is either an infinite
utility or an infinite negative utility. Calculate the expected
utility over all remaining outcomes. If some other action has a
higher expected utility than A, then A is wrong. Otherwise A is
right.
Nick Bostrom
http://www.hedweb.com/nickb n.bostrom@lse.ac.uk
Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method
London School of Economics



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:56 MST