[TikTok] Comparability between suffering and happiness

By Ben_West🔸 @ 2022-09-01T16:31 (+23)

Note: if this video doesn't load, please refresh the page

@benthamite #negativeutilitarianism #effectivealtruism ♬ original sound - Benthamite

Transcript:

Negative utilitarians believe that we should prioritize the alleviation of suffering over the creation of happiness, for example claiming that one unit of suffering is outweighed only by two units of happiness.

Toby Ord argues that this is incoherent because there are no natural units in which to measure happiness and suffering, and therefore it's unclear what it even means to put them on the same scale.

I disagree. Consider taking a certain number of elementary particles and using them to create the happiest brain possible; call that one unit of happiness. Use the same number of particles to create the brain experiencing the most suffering possible; call that one unit of suffering.

Elementary particles therefore let us derive an “exchange rate” between happiness and suffering, and it's coherent to talk about trade-offs between the two.

Derek Shiller @ 2022-09-01T21:14 (+13)

Toby Ord argues that this is incoherent because there are no natural units in which to measure happiness and suffering, and therefore it's unclear what it even means to put them on the same scale.

One problem might be that there are no natural units on which to measure happiness and suffering. Another is that there are too many. If there are a hundred thousand different ways to put happiness and suffering on the same scale and they all differ in the exchange rate they imply, then it seems you've got the same problem. Your example of comparisons in terms of elementary particles feels somewhat arbitrary, which makes me think this may be an issue.

Ben_West @ 2022-09-01T22:12 (+3)

This is a good point, I agree

prattle @ 2022-09-01T21:36 (+9)

If amount of happiness (or suffering) possible is not linear in the number of elementary particles, what number of elementary particles do you suggest using?

Ben_West @ 2022-09-01T22:55 (+4)

I am not sure, and I think this implies a good objection to my suggestion

Ben_West @ 2022-09-01T16:37 (+9)

Note: TikTok embeds don't seem to work fully here – if you can't see the video, try refreshing the page.

MichaelStJules @ 2022-09-01T18:04 (+6)

What exchange rate could you infer from the happiest N particles and the most suffering N particles? I feel like a step is missing. Are you assuming they're equally great in absolute value?

https://reflectivedisequilibrium.blogspot.com/2012/03/are-pain-and-pleasure-equally-energy.html?m=1

https://www.simonknutsson.com/reply-to-shulmans-are-pain-and-pleasure-equally-energy-efficient/

MichaelStJules @ 2022-09-01T18:31 (+5)

I consider it an open question how functionally similar suffering and pleasure are, e.g. if the functions for suffering are all identical or opposite/symmetric to the functions for pleasure, in bijection, even in minds optimized for each.

Ben_West @ 2022-09-01T19:24 (+3)

Thanks for the question!

I'm merely claiming that statements like "one unit of suffering is worth two units of happiness" are coherent because "unit" can be defined in reference to particles. I'm not claiming that any particular ratio is correct, only that it's coherent to talk about ratios other than 1:1.

Ben_West @ 2022-09-01T17:59 (+4)

Note: I couldn't find anyone making this specific response to Toby anywhere, but the basic idea has been around for quite some time, maybe originating in this 2012 blog post from Carl.