Larks comments on Does Effective Altruism Lead to the Altruistic Repugnant Conclusion? - Effective Altruism Forum

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (14)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Larks 27 July 2017 11:19:51PM *  3 points [-]
  1. C^^ is better than C^, which is better than C;
  2. C^^ is better than B;
  3. B is better than C and C^.

But these three rankings are inconsistent, and one of them should go. To endorse all of them means to breach transitivity. Is EA committed to rejecting transitivity? This view is very controversial, and if EA required it, this would need serious inquiry and defence.

These rankings do not seem inconsistent to me? C^^ > B > C^ > C

edit: substituted with '^' due to formatting issues.

Comment author: Alex_Barry 28 July 2017 10:42:09AM 1 point [-]

I cannot see the inconsistency there either, the whole section seems a bit strange as his "no death" example starts also containing death again about half way through.

(Note your first line seems to be missing some *'s)

Comment author: Larks 29 July 2017 04:13:24PM 1 point [-]

(Note your first line seems to be missing some *'s)

Fixed, thanks.

Comment author: RandomEA 28 July 2017 03:28:40AM 1 point [-]

I also had some difficulty understanding what he was arguing here.