
Ends Don't Justify Means (Among Humans) - ektimo
http://lesswrong.com/lw/uv/ends_dont_justify_means_among_humans/
======
billswift
The ends are the only way to justify the means; what the sloppy thinkers who
recite "The ends don't justify the means" really seem to mean is that some
means are not justifiable. Which is undeniably true, but because they don't
really think their position/slogan through, they often end up gathering a
bunch of nonsense along with it.

~~~
electromagnetic
You're right. Slaughtering 20 junior school students and a crossing guard are
not acceptable means to get your daughter from school to her dentist
appointment on time.

It is however acceptable to kill 20 enemy combatants to rescue a dignitary
from a besieged embassy.

~~~
brudgers
> _"It is however acceptable to kill 20 enemy combatants to rescue a dignitary
> from a besieged embassy."_

Even if the dignitary was Von Ribbentrop?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_von_Ribbentrop>

Semi-deontological ethical rules suffer the same problems as deontological
ethical rules.

~~~
sorbus
Germans (or at least Nazis) would, at the time, have considered it to be
entirely worth it. I believe that the intended context was that the dignitary
was a member of the same organization/country as the people trying to rescue
him/her, while the enemy combatants would be from a group opposed to that
country. Your response, on the other hand, seems to suppose the existence of a
third party (the dignitary, enemy combatants, and in addition a group which
dislikes the dignitary and knows that he's a horrible person).

~~~
brudgers
Although you are correct that I am assuming a third party, it is only in the
role of judging the described actions as just or unjust that a third party is
assumed...namely the gentle reader - a necessary assumption in any discussion
of hypothetical ethical scenarios as the example of the school children
illustrates.

There is a convention to these things - one doesn't assume that the dead
school children were carriers of an incurable virus and that only their death
prevented a deadly pandemic etc.

As I am sure you recognize, a patriotic motivation does not make an action
right - even if your assumption that the rescuers and rescued share political
affiliation might often lead one to assume your holding such a belief.

------
samd
The objection is he making is essentially the objection a rule-
consequentialist would make. Which is that although in this particular
situation it would produce better consequences to kill the innocent man and
save the 5 people, overall it would produce worse consequences if everyone
followed the rule that killing innocent people is an acceptable means to some
end.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
I think it's a bit more subtle than that, although he _does_ point out the
danger of imitators. See my reply at
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2088562>.

~~~
samd
I'm not sure.

Here is the rule: "Do no harm."

Why should we follow it?

A rule-consequentialist would say, "Because if everyone followed that rule all
the time it would lead to better consequences, on average, than if people
tried to calculate the consequences of each individual action and act to
maximize them."

Why would that lead to better consequences?

A rule-consequentialist could say, "Because people are quite bad at
calculating consequences, especially in the tumultuous time before making a
critical ethical decision. While we have had the time to think and properly
calculate the hypothetical consequences of everyone following the rule."

I think that's exactly the argument Eliezer is making.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
Put like that, I agree - I had a different meaning of "rule-consequentialist"
in mind than you, apparently. (I'm not too familiar with the vocabulary of
such discussions, sorry!) Thanks for clarifying.

~~~
samd
Don't worry, like any academic field philosophy is filled with jargon, but
knowing the jargon doesn't make you any smarter and not knowing doesn't make
you any dumber.

Both you and Eliezer made good arguments and points, they just happened to
already have a name in the philosophical jargon.

If you're interested, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at
plato.stanford.edu is the greatest repository of philosophical knowledge on
the Internet.

They have an article about rule-consequentialism:
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism-rule/>

------
danbmil99
too much faith in 'friendly AI'. Friendly my ass! Doesn't this guy consume
Science Fiction?

Seriously, I would extend his argument to assume that all 'hardware is
corrupted' as he puts it, though I think it's more accurate to say 'all
software is buggy'. For this amazing AI to even exist, it probably had to be
pretty damn selfish, pushing out all other potential AI's to get to the top of
the heap.

Just saying.

------
johngalt
But people do make these decisions all the time. Closing watertight doors on a
warship? The first responders at Chernobyl? Kamikaze?

Not only do we condemn other innocents to death, but also ourselves.

------
powera
This is an incredible stretch of what I'd take "The Ends Don't Justify The
Means" to be. The whole "killing one person to save ten" thing really isn't
related.

The way I see it, it's about externalities. I push someone onto a train track
to save ten people in a mineshaft, fine. Somebody else watches me push someone
on a train track, doesn't see the mineshaft, and goes on to push 25 people
onto train tracks in the future. Perhaps that's contrived, but when he
describes coups in the same terminology it's a lot less so.

------
igravious
So let me get this straight.

The author is saying that his answer to the the classic hypothetical dilemma
in ethics of "is it right to do harm (murder one) to prevent a greater harm
(death of five)" which usually framed in utilitarian-ish debates is:

 _a hypothetical incorruptible super awesome version of me would murder the
innocent person but as I am not that type of being (and only that type of
being can answer the question) I am not going to answer the question_

But why not go all in and pose it thus: "is it better for one person to suffer
eternal suffering to free all others from any type of suffering"? And that's
why Jesus died for our sins you know. And that really happened. And Jesus was
smarter than a hypothetical incorruptible super awesome version of you.
Therefore ... I'm not sure where this is going.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is (and by all means argue the toss with me and
don't shoot me down) Eliezer Yudkowsky _sounds_ a lot smarter than he actually
is.

~~~
sp332
Did you miss the bit where Jesus asserted power over death and came back to
life after three days? The sacrifice was a _blood_ sacrifice, not a _soul_
sacrifice. Eternal suffering doesn't come into it.

~~~
yters
Theologically Jesus is to have suffered all that humans can suffer. So, even
though He resurrected in 3 days, that doesn't mean He couldn't have
experienced an eternity of torment. By His own account, He experienced
complete abandonment by God.

~~~
sp332
It said he was tested (tempted) in all ways. Hell isn't a test or temptation,
I don't think it counts.

------
sigzero
It is never right, to do wrong, for a chance to do right.

------
patrickk
Surely a sufficiently advanced AI would simply send a warning signal to the
train driver to "hit the brakes quick". Next problem please.

------
anamax
The means produce the ends.

------
iwwr
A creature running under that paradigm is abandoning their humanity. We can
only exist as human beings with rights if we respect our fellows' human
rights.

~~~
sp4rki
So if your daughter is kidnapped by the a Colombian Drug Cartel and you
decided that since you're a badass, you're going to go save her. Then you kill
20 baddies that are themselves cutthroat murderers that would have undeniably
killed a greater number of people. Can you really tell me that the ends
wouldn't justify the means?

If MI-5 kills 4 terrorists which where preparing to bomb a bus station with
hundreds if not thousands of people, they're in the wrong for not respecting
the rights of the terrorists? Or would they be in the wrong for not protecting
the citizens of the country they're supposed to be protecting?

The ends will always justify the means in the mind of the person doing the
act. What makes the actions of one person (or government) right is that in the
minds of other people the means are also justifiable.

If someone is willing to not respect my rights and kill me to steal my wallet,
I'm willing to forgo their rights because lets me honest, the ends do justify
the means if it benefits not only yourself, but the rest of the population.

~~~
yters
Rights are a social contract. You give up your rights once you violate those
of others.

~~~
sp4rki
Oh I agree. The moment you go on a killing rampage to rescue your daughter
from the cartels, you justify other people taking action against you to
protect themselves. The thing is, there needs to be someone that resigns their
rights and does the right (so to speak) thing. Someone needs to keep the
terrorists at bay. Someone needs to protect the citizens from the gangs.
Morally objectionable? Maybe. In the eyes of a few. In the eyes of the rest,
these people are heroes.

~~~
yters
No, those actions are morally right. Those people have already violated their
part in the social contract.

