Literally an entire “”””philosophy””” and vision of morality that is based on “everything rich techbros want to do is morally correct”.
Shout out to “more everything forever”, been enjoying laughing at these freaks as I read the book
Literally an entire “”””philosophy””” and vision of morality that is based on “everything rich techbros want to do is morally correct”.
Shout out to “more everything forever”, been enjoying laughing at these freaks as I read the book
Even then, strict utilitarianism leads to some strange conclusions that feel wrong but are difficult to articulate why. On average, a $5,000 donation to the Malaria Consurtium saves someone’s life[1] (although there is some variance). I haven’t seen much doubt surrounding this number and it seems reasonable to me. However, if you want to optimize for total lives saved and someone were to give you a job as a hitman that paid a $10,000 donation to the Malaria Consurtium per kill, the utilitarian/effective altruisti would argue that it is immoral not to take the job, because one fewer person (on average) dies if you decide not to murder a random person for money. The reasoning makes perfect sense, but still feels so obviously wrong.
https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/seasonal-malaria-chemoprevention ↩︎
hey did anyone donate to the malaria consortium the day luigi allegedly killed that guy?
Luigi was big on rationalism, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he donated to them. Although his altruism is probably a bit more effective than a Malaria Consurtium donation, and a few orders of magnitude better than a MIRI donation.
When you hear the trolley problem and are like, “where’s the problem?”