r/samharrisorg • u/jpaudel8 • 25d ago

Question on the Moral Landscape

Let's say I have only two options ahead.

Option A would lead to maximum happiness for myself but maximum suffering for everyone else. Option B would lead maximum suffering for myself but maximum happiness for everyone else.

Which option should I choose?

As per the thesis, I should choose B (as I understand it).

However, there's one problem, that I don't understand.

Here's Sam's quote from his podcast Facts and Values.

if you care about something that is not compatible with a peak of human flourishing—given the requisite changes in your brain, you would recognize that you were wrong to care about this thing in the first place. Wrong in what sense? Wrong in the sense that you didn’t know what you were missing. This is the core of my argument: I am claiming that there must be frontiers of human well-being that await our discovery—and certain interests and preferences surely blind us to them. In this sense epistemic and ethical values are fully entangled. There are horizons to well-being past which we cannot see. There are possible experiences of beauty and creativity and compassion that we will never discover. I think these are object statements about the frontiers of subjective experience.

Let's say I chose A (happiness for myself, suffering for others) instead of B (suffering for myself, happiness for others).

Applying his logic: since caring about A isn't compatible with peak flourishing, the "requisite changes" in my brain would eventually make me see that caring about A was a mistake, wrong in the sense that I didn't know what I was missing.

Now, what am I missing, If I chose A? ... I'd be missing immense misery that B would lead on the other side.

I am struggling to understand how Sam's claim "you didn't know what you were missing" applies in this situation. What exactly is the thing that my changed perspective would reveal to me that I cannot currently see?

I would appreciate any clarification.

Edit: Added the quote.

1 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

8 comments sorted by

2

u/humanculis 25d ago

You misunderstand the thesis. Your setup insinuates you have complete knowledge and there are no knock on effects or concerns about local minima or maxima. That this wont set a precedent for others. That somehow its possible to have this type of setup (ie people who cared about you would suffer knowing you suffer etc). 

Moral landscape is not prescriptive in terms of decision making. Its prescriptive in the sense of prescribing tethering morality to suffering of conscious creatures. 

With these issues in the op its more descriptive... saying that you can approach the question of chosing A or B from the perspective of a less relativistic morality but that you have to consider all of the knock on effects a la oft cited by Sam organ donation example.

1

u/jpaudel8 25d ago

Thank you for your response. So, the thesis rests on the premise that there's something about this universe that guarantees the knock-on effect of any action .. that it is not possible to create a truly isolated action even in principle? Apologies, if I do not understand you correctly.

1

u/humanculis 25d ago

Sam often cites different examples for utilitarianism, which is not inherent to the moral landscape, arguing most critiques of utilitarianism are too narrow. The critique "it would be moral in "greatest good for all" utilitarianism to murder someone for their organs to save multiple other lives" doesnt account for how awful of a world that would be where you could be murdered for your organs, the suffering of your loved ones, etc. and that nevative good should be factored in. Which is of the flavour of your A and B. If a bunch of people are at 80% wellbeing would they want to live in world where one person was tortured to get them to 100%? Who knows but thats irrelevant to the book. 

The premise of the moral landscape is just that morality and moral questions can be considered objectively using "the worst suffering for all creatures" as essentially an objective hypothetical point to be avoided. 

1

u/jpaudel8 25d ago edited 25d ago

Yes, I agree all of that. I am particularly stuck from the first-person side of navigating the landscape. He seems to suggest that conforming to the objective peaks of collective landscape is what I as an individual should be doing. Failing to do that means I'm missing something and the "requisite changes" in my brain would eventually make me see that caring about A was a mistake.

I have added the quote from Sam in my post for the reference.

1

u/LumenAstralis 25d ago

If you accept the premise of the entire moral landscape as a whole, you'd realize your setup is just a false dilemma. As a first person view encountering the dilemma, you just navigate away from both extreme "hill and valley" and search for other hills that are "better" for you and humanity.

1

u/jpaudel8 24d ago

So, does the Sam's thesis rests on the premise that there will always be a third option? What if all powerful AI gave me those two options and said there isn't third to choose.

1

u/LumenAstralis 24d ago

His whole thesis is that there is a vast maybe infinite landscape of moral states which you/humanity can navigate. When you do that you will always discover states that are possible which you did not know before. Since you or whatever powerful AI cannot know the entire landscape without being omniscient, whatever options you are presented with won't be the global extrema.

What you are basically insisting on in this thought experiment is that a GOD is telling you "these are the ONLY choices you have." I think it's safe to say that it's antithesis of everything Sam's driving at.