tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post4511285425287566186..comments2023-10-11T06:50:10.494-04:00Comments on The Glass-Bottom Blog: Summer political philosophy updateZedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10623092831367861959noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-79610431082648330752009-08-09T19:11:37.182-04:002009-08-09T19:11:37.182-04:001. Flatly disagree. Rare to do worthwhile work aft...1. Flatly disagree. Rare to do worthwhile work after 50, and hangovers are worse in old age. Hedonic pleasure and the joy of original achievement are the two reasons life is worth living. Ergo dumb to want to live past 50.<br /><br />2. Yes, some of this comes down to whether life is good, bad or neutral. I'd say neutral or bad. I tend to cast a cold eyesocket.<br /><br />3. I see utilitarianism as a way of blinding the chimp brain with science; morals are ultimately chimp-brain anyway. The point about linear programming is that I see my "utility function" as being steplike rather than linear. Ceteris paribus, sure, let's do a better job of running things, but to the extent that things are run OK I'm willing to trade in efficiency gains for gains along other dimensions. Maybe I'm making this point overly general, but with e.g. jobs, as long as one is employing sufficiently competent people I'm OK with fulfilling random other criteria instead of picking the "best" people. <br /><br />4/2. I have this intuition that the knowledge of (say) electroweak theory adds something to my life, but I don't think a typical pre-EW grad student was unhappier. Similarly with art, you need enough out there not to be bored (here come sufficiency principles again) but once that's out there it's unclear that adding more actually makes you happier. <br /><br />(The other day I was walking to the bar when I came up with the line "There's no business like Shoah business." Later I googled it and was disappointed to find out that it wasn't original. In a smaller world it might have been and I'd have been pleased w/ myself for a day or two.)<br /><br />I'm not sure globalization is worth it on (avg. rather than total) utilitarian grounds. At replacement we'd still have far too many people. What are they all supposed to do other than fart, breed, and riot? On the other hand, I do have a prior ethical commitment to progress, and would like to have enough people around to maintain a healthy number of outliers. Maybe the future is to have most people do trivial service-industry jobs and get their kicks from having others smile at them, but it's not clear how well this would work.Zedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10623092831367861959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-36432910251056405332009-08-09T17:56:21.731-04:002009-08-09T17:56:21.731-04:00Offhand, somewhat drunken thoughts, in no particul...Offhand, somewhat drunken thoughts, in no particular order:<br /><br />1. Why isn't longevity that important? It's obviously good <i>ceteris paribus</i>, and presumably all rational, well-informed people would trade some average quality of life for length.<br /><br />2. Things that particularly contribute to my happiness and don't really have diminishing marginal utility: music (including certain songs themselves), movies, books, nature, food, drink. Amount that progress seems to have facilitated my enjoyment of such things: a lot; I am likely to live longer, spend less time sick, have more knowledge of and access to good stuff including good means of enjoyment(e.g., speakers, Thai delivery), more opportunities to share my passions with others, and a frame of reference such that I appreciate my good fortune. And that's just what immediately comes to mind. I think you're just a melancholic. I mean, I agree that life is tragic, but I'm generally blissfully oblivious of this fact, or at least detached from it, like my impending death. Progress probably helps with this, too. Anyway, I think this "debate" is another head of the hydra that includes <a href="http://favorcurry.blogspot.com/2008/02/selective-abortion.html" rel="nofollow">selective abortion</a> and <a href="http://favorcurry.blogspot.com/2008/08/we-should-want-to-have-control.html" rel="nofollow">genetic modification</a>. We're Wittgensteinian lions, poking each other.<br /><br />3. When faced with hard cases, I take it you come down on the flip-the-switch-don't-push-the-fat-guy-fuck-the-system side. Fair enough; I can relate to people who reject hardcore efficiency/equity utilitarianism, even if they may simply be giving into subhuman inclinations ("chimp brain," in Will's words). But you seem to go further; you "disagree with the linear-programming approach towards social policy, the notion that policies are best thought of as constrained optimization problems. The way I see it it's only necessary for things to work well enough, or even not terribly, while satisfying as many constraints and desiderata as one wants to impose." Surely you don't disagree with the notion of cost-effectiveness; I hope you aren't suggesting that it's okay to engage in some degree of handwaving at the expense of this principle.<br /><br />4. I agree about the interestingness/provocativeness of the globalization/dignity of work critique. But obviously the progress is worth it, especially in the long run with the hope of eliminating key material shortages and lowering the birth rate. The way that people come into this world -- and what to do with them -- is incredible and intractably fucked up.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10706340157861904187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-77566433501700615682009-08-09T14:31:02.648-04:002009-08-09T14:31:02.648-04:00E.g. on the distinction between something being va...E.g. on the distinction between something being valuable and something making one happier. The electroweak theory was extremely valuable but I don't think you could argue that physicists (other than Salam and Weinberg) are on average _happier_ as a consequence.Zedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10623092831367861959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-34780595015293112732009-08-09T14:19:37.846-04:002009-08-09T14:19:37.846-04:00In reverse order:
(2) Well, most people own prope...In reverse order:<br /><br />(2) Well, most people own property and have nothing to say; therefore their priorities are not surprising. I believe in a strong conception of kids' rights (hence a weak one of parents' rights) and as for property rights, I don't believe in them as _rights_ (i.e. intrinsically valuable) at all; they're just useful for organizing businesses. This is a value judgment of sorts; I think the marginal value gained from enabling dissidents to express their thoughts fearlessly is greater than that from not taxing businesses. <br /><br />(1) As I've said I don't think longevity is esp. relevant, or that people were that unhappy in the Middle Ages. (Infant mortality is a possible exception but I don't buy the usual interpretation of recent research.) I think life is basically tragic if lightened by the occasional your mom joke, and that this is the result of most people being replaceable and dispensable, which is hard to reconcile with the desire to feel needed. Most of one's well-being comes from things like status, which can't be changed through progress, except perhaps for the worse (a la Greg Clark). I guess I disagree that keeping the masses fed and clothed will do all that much to keep them happy, unless one finds something for them to do that will keep them busy and give their lives a reasonable illusion of meaning. <br /><br />I think we need fewer people, not more. As for the business with elites and progress, I think it's true that rapid technological change has winners as well as losers but I think this is more about f'(x) than f(x). Change tends to upset lives; being, in general, pro-atomization and pro-deracination, I approve of this, but I doubt that it's utilitarian for the most part.Zedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10623092831367861959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-45264270025723003762009-08-09T03:19:01.318-04:002009-08-09T03:19:01.318-04:00You covered quite a lot there. I think I agree wit...You covered quite a lot there. I think I agree with most of it but don't get two things:<br /><br />1) Not sure entirely where you get the "progress doesn't make people happier". I understand the Unabomber argument but yours is a bit different. Progress certainly makes the elites happier (as far as I can tell) and as for the poor - fewer people die of TB, and they have cell phones they can play games on. Your point about globalization is a good one (few actors make millions, rest are poor and wait tables) but that seems to be an issue of inequality, which we can design around with more redistribution. People are going to keep reproducing and we have the technology to increase the carrying capacity of the planet. If we can keep them fed and disease-free I'm not sure job fulfillment is that important. That to me has always just been a luxury for elites.<br /><br />2) On your liberties point, many people consider property rights and home-schooling kids more important than free speech and fair trials. I mean, look at the debate over guns. Not sure where/how you draw the distinction there.<br /><br />-doWestcotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12274195880382734983noreply@blogger.com