Imagine your worst ideological enemy– the people whose blog posts you read and go “why are you WRONG about EVERYTHING.” For many transhumanists, it might be bioethicists; for a disability rights advocate, Peter Singer; for an effective altruist, a philanthrolocalist; for a feminist, a social conservative.
Now, imagine that a mad scientist has invented a device called the Enemy Control Ray. The Enemy Control Ray is a mind-control device: whatever rule you say into it, your enemy must follow.
(Let’s pretend for a moment that the moral problems of mind control don’t exist. This is a thought experiment.)
However, because of limitations of the technology, any rule you put in is translated into your enemy’s belief system.
So, let’s say you’re a trans rights activist, and you’re targeting transphobes. If you think trans women are women, you can’t say “call trans women by their correct pronouns”, because you believe that trans women are women and transphobes don’t, so it will be translated into “misgender trans women.” If you are a disability rights advocate targeting Peter Singer, you can’t say “don’t advocate for the infanticide of disabled babies”, because it will translate as “don’t advocate for the death of beings that have a right to life”, because you think babies have a right to life and Singer doesn’t. And, for that matter, you can’t say “no eugenics” to Mr. Singer, because it will translate as “bring into existence people whom I think deserve to exist.”
You might be tempted to say “what a useless device!” But the thing is that you have to be clever.
For instance, here are a bunch of things you can say to your friendly neighborhood transphobe:
- Do not do violence to anyone unless they did violence to someone else first or they’re consenting.
- Do not fire people from jobs for reasons unrelated to their ability to perform the job.
- If your children are minors, you must support them, even if they make choices you disapprove of.
- Do not bother people who are really weird but not hurting anyone, and I mean direct hurt not indirect harm to the social fabric; you can argue with them politely or ignore them but don’t insult them or harass them.
- Try to listen to people about their own experiences and don’t assume that everyone works the same way you do.
That’s, like, half of transphobia right there.
—
One of my favorite sketches is the Are We The Baddies? sketch from the Mitchell and Webb show.
Second Nazi: Have you noticed that our caps actually have little pictures of skulls on them?
Hans: I don’t… er-
Second Nazi: Hans… are we the baddies?
I think one of the most important rules of ethics is that you might be the baddies.
Everyone thinks they’re on the side of good. Outside of comic books, no one wakes up in the morning and says “ah, yes, I am evil, today I am going to evilly take over the world while evilly stroking an evil cat.” Some people have managed to shock children for not obeying [cw: psychiatric abuse] and not realize that they’re the bad guys here.
So one of the things I want out of my ethical system is that it fails gracefully. If it turns out I’m wrong about everything– if future generations will look at my morality in horror, if people like me are going to be used as the caricatured villains in TV shows– I want to cause as little harm as I can.
For this reason, I think to myself: what rules would I want the people whom I think are evil to follow? What rules would I say into the Enemyphone? And I use these rules to bind myself as best I can. I don’t support firing people for what they believe in. I don’t deceive people or lie with statistics or misrepresent my opponent’s views to try to get people on my side. I read things by people who disagree with me (I have an entire comment section of people who disagree with me) and try to be open-minded. I support leaving people to make their own decisions as much as possible, even when those decisions are ones I disagree with.
You made up the thought experiment, so it follows your rules… Still! I was confused by your examples because I assumed it would translate meta level arguments into the corresponding meta level argument that match their belief system. In which case it seems like you’re much more liable to communicate non-moral rules. My twenty-second thoughts are “consider second order effects” and “take ideas seriously”. I’m a little worried about the second one though…
LikeLiked by 4 people
I’m not sure this really works. If the only difference in value systems between you and the hypothetical transphobe was their transphobia, then these commands could work. But what about people who disagree with the bullet points themselves?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, I don’t agree with #3 and 6, and I imagine violent criminals don’t agree with #1.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t the translation be a problem for your list of things you can say? For example, why wouldn’t “If your children are minors, you must support them, even if they make choices you disapprove of” translate to “Treat your children fairly” (which can mean anything)?
LikeLiked by 4 people
I think it would depend on what we mean by ‘support’.
The experiment seems to be working from a kind of “greatest common denominator” or “most-sophisticated shared concepts”.
I agree that Ozy and the typical transphobe would probably disagree about the specific of ‘supporting’ someone in a moral sense.
Both of them would probably be working from a definition of ‘support’ that includes, “push kids towards medical treatment for harmful things.” Their different notions of ‘harmful’ would probably lead to different outcomes.
On the other hand, I think there are some baseline traits of ‘support’ where they’d find common ground. If I say, “parents should provide their kids with adequate food and shelter”, then I think there’s quite a lot of conceptual overlap.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yep. And the fact of the matter is that a lot of transphobes don’t agree that they should provide their trans children with adequate food and shelter, and if they all did that it would be an improvement.
(I actually think teenagers should be sent to the therapist of their choice, which does mean that if I had an evangelical teenager who wanted to go to Biblical counseling I would let them.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
The fun thing about this thought experiment is when your ideological enemies give you exactly the same list of rules you gave them.
LikeLiked by 5 people
And you’ve just created society. (probably quite a libertarian one.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
My thoughts exactly. This list reads a lot like part of the constitution of a (maybe hypothetical) civilized country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
*goes into your comments sections and disagrees that the entire comments section disagrees with you*
LikeLiked by 4 people
This is basically EY’s chronophone, right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s inspired by it, but I’m making a different point.
LikeLike
“Do not do violence to anyone unless they did violence to someone else first or they’re consenting.”
I don’t think this one would work either, since so many TERFs seem to frame any opposition from trans women (often euphemistically referred to as “males”) as violence.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Er, isn’t that a dysphemism in this context?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suppose it is; I have a lazy tendency to use the word “euphemism” to mean both euphemism and dysphemism.
LikeLike
I think there are ways in which terfs say ‘males’ and mean ‘trans women’ where it is sort of a euphemism in that it is about making them look more reasonable than they are…
IDK, dysphemism isn’t the right word either. It’s like a euphemism but the unpleasantness you are avoiding isn’t the word, it’s your own bigotry.
Like when people (mostly US) say ‘urban youths’ and mean ‘young black people’. Or in our country, people say ‘minority religions’ and mean ‘Muslims’. To hide their racism/Islamophobia respectively.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I’m struggling to think of a provocative sentence in which replacing “Islam” with “minority religions” of “Muslims” with “adherents of minority religions” make the sentence sound better. Of course, I’m an adherent of a minority religion, and strongly anti-Islam, so that might be a factor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are many trans women who have famously said, verbatim, “misgendering is violence” (just google it with quotes), and in other ways literally do themselves frame all opposition as violent. violentreceipts @ tumblr is the most famous repository of posts that “TERFs” consider violent. I think we can see that there are some very unproductive definitions of “violence” in circulation.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that both misgendering and death threats are forms of violence. A “TERF” states on her blog, “people with penises are men”. This is a violent first strike against any person with a penis who does not want to be called a man. Thus, “do not do violence” no longer applies, and the person with a penis tells the TERF to kill herself.
This discourse is suboptimal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A moral thought experiment. I’m not sure you can set the ethics of mind control aside here. Imagine a Muslim trying to figure out how to translate “Submit to Allah in all things” into Ozy-speak.
LikeLike
“Submit to (the thing Ozy believes to be the greatest force in the universe) in all things”, maybe.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Strong nuclear?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Well, I’m sure Ozy is submitting to that one!
(And I am too! And so are you! We’ve laid out Article One of the Constitution of the Universe!)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Compound interest?
LikeLike
Thou Shalt Not Travel Faster Than The Speed Of Light In Vacuum.
LikeLike
Translation: “As a human, you have a very limited cognitive ability, even if you were the smartest person ever. This still wouldn’t be enough to comprehend even the process of folding of a single protein, leave alone an entire another human, leave alone the entire society. Therefore, you should optimize for the soonest creation of a self-improving FAI, and then let it solve all your and the society’s problems – but don’t be baffled when it makes decisions that make no sense to you: this is entirely expected from the agent that has far more information than you do, and processes it far better.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Was this inspired by Archimedes’ Chronophone?
LikeLike
If I’m reading EY correctly, he’s trying to encourage his audience to question, and potentially modify, their own beliefs. The chronophone translation filter seems to be his way of talking about bias or conventional wisdom without invoking the associated baggage. (Since “eschew conventional wisdom” probably is conventional wisdom over at LW.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think this line is really an elegant way to describe the problem.
It gives a great explanation for why ideas around being harm-focused and intervention-minimizing could survive the moral translation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
>Do not fire people from jobs for reasons unrelated to their ability to perform the job.
Force this rule on everyone and you’ve basically solved the internet.
LikeLike
The (probably easier) alternative would be to decouple having a job from being able to afford what’s necessary to live with some basic human dignity. Yay UBI!
LikeLiked by 8 people
And less inherently objectionable. I am very strongly against a norm that says that I shouldn’t give my money to (more) moral people in preference to (more) immoral ones.
LikeLiked by 1 person
> The (probably easier) alternative would be to decouple having a job from being able to afford what’s necessary to live with some basic human dignity. Yay UBI!
Then you just have the same issue all over again, just with whether or not we should take the UBI away from ‘evil’ people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have nothing insightful to say, but the youtube link doesn’t work. This one does:
LikeLiked by 4 people
OZY: Let’s pretend for a moment that the moral problems of mind control don’t exist. This is a thought experiment.
AMP: But–
OZY’S ENEMY CONTROL RAY: Zap! Zap!
AMP: Hey, the moral problems of mind control DON’T exist!
(j/k)
LikeLiked by 6 people
“Do not do violence to anyone unless they did violence to someone else first or they’re consenting.”
“… or they’re consenting” might not translate properly, since it
“Do not fire people from jobs for reasons unrelated to their ability to perform the job.”
Should work; unless you feel it’s in some sense inherently unvirtuous to do that, which ironically I do.
Now that I think about it, any philosophy created as a result of the Enemy Control Ray could not itself be communicated that way, as it would just be translated into “follow your own philosophy”.
“Do not bother people who are really weird but not hurting anyone, and I mean direct hurt not indirect harm to the social fabric; you can argue with them politely or ignore them but don’t insult them or harass them.”
“And I mean direct hurt”? Is that a universal concept?
“Try to listen to people about their own experiences and don’t assume that everyone works the same way you do.”
Wonder if that would translate to “pursue humility” or “seek truth”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How exactly do you feel it’s “unvirtuous” to fire people if and only if their job performance has a certain degree of issues? I can certainly see that, for example, if your employee murdered somebody (for pleasure), even a person who would never work for your company or buy your product, you should consider fire them even if they are still working in a perfectly effective manner.
For a certain definition of “perform your job”, this is actually a point of dispute in the case of demands that Darren Wilson and similar police officers be imprisoned, which generally includes being fired.
LikeLiked by 1 person
cw for ableism and transphobia:
*straw transphobe voice* seeking transition is evidence of mental instability, though. I think most jobs benefit from having sane employees. Why should a man who cuts off his penis because he ~~~feels like a woman~~~ or something be treated with any respect not afforded to a man who gets scales tatooed all over his face because he feels like a lizard? In fact, I’d let the second guy in before the first, because there’s no body of evidence that links translizardism with depression and anxiety, both of which negatively affect job performance, and because he probably won’t waste everyone’s time and money by suing the company for not calling him “your lizardness”*/ straw transphobe voice*
LikeLike
My response to straw!transphobe: If someone performs adequately at their job despite being depressed, then no one should discriminate against them either. Why on earth would one care about something loosely correlated with something loosely correlated with job performance, instead of caring about job performance?
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s also the fact that “perform the job” often means presenting a certain appearance. I wouldn’t hire a person who *unconvincingly* presents as the other gender to deal with customers or clients–not because I really care about their personal life or gender identity, but because the job involves presenting a professional appearance.
LikeLike
>How exactly do you feel it’s “unvirtuous” to fire people if and only if their job performance has a certain degree of issues?
Well, strictly speaking, I feel it’s … icky … to fire people for their opinions. Because it lacks a certain intellectual integrity. (And it’s bad for society.)
That said, I don’t believe employers should act as vigilantes to ruin the lives of people who (they believe have) acted unethically or broken the law.
LikeLike
Well, strictly speaking, I feel it’s … icky … to fire people for their opinions. Because it lacks a certain intellectual integrity.
How?
LikeLike
This only works if your moral beliefs are already sufficiently universalizable. It is trivial to construct some that aren’t, and there seem to be a small number of religious and ideological people who have such beliefs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on διά πέντε / dia pente.
LikeLike
Solution: “Call people women if they claim to be women, even if you don’t believe them.”
I confess I don’t see why this one would get mistranslated, especially if we’re assuming that “Do not do violence to anyone unless they did violence to someone else first” and “Do not fire people from jobs for reasons unrelated to their ability to perform the job” would come across correctly.
There’s an awful lot of wiggle room in the definitions of “violence” (as others have noted), and in “ability to perform the job” (e.g. some people argued that Brendan Eich’s political beliefs would’ve prevented him from being an effective CEO). If this device is going to mess with a phrase as objective as “infanticide of disabled babies”, I’d expect it to wreak havoc on something more subjective.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The original post proposes that mind control is occurring, admitting that in real life this could be ethically complicated. In this sense, your revision is completely effective. However, we are not trying to invent a mind control ray; we are trying to improve others’ beliefs and our own. Imagine that someone suggested, out of the blue, with no preamble or conclusion, that you call dogs cats if their owners claimed they were cats. You’d probably just say “no” if you weren’t given a reason agreeing is actually good… unless you were instead given a reason that disagreeing is bad.
In real life, the best equivalent of a mind control ray (when belief and desired outcome don’t align) is basically force. Personally, I do call people by their performed pronouns all the time and never reblog posts that imply even general insinuations of misgendering, because I dislike the prospect of being unfollowed or sent death threats. Inconveniently, even the slightest omission or inclusion can ~betray~ underlying beliefs (example). People don’t like your circumlocutions such as “a canine-bodied cat”. The ideal outcome is still a change of beliefs. This is tantamount to the thoughtcrime concept, which is actually something that radical feminists actively fear. If you run a search for trans doublespeak there are other results.
(I do not mean to imply that TERFs “experience oppression” or for that matter that I even disbelieve “Call people women if they claim to be women, even if you don’t believe them”.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good post, though I may only be saying that because I’ve been thinking about posting exactly the same thing (under a flashier title like “Stalin’s Chronophone”)
But what always hangs me up is this – presumably if I tell Stalin “communism doesn’t work”, that doesn’t translate, so I’ve got to go with something meta-level “you shouldn’t kill people just to help implement your preferred political system.”
But that’s *also* something Stalin disagrees with, so it wouldn’t work either!
It seems like either your enemy already holds some principle (in which case you’re not getting anything by telling it to them) or they don’t (in which case it doesn’t pass through the chronophone). What you would really want to do is say the chronophone allows meta-level principles but not object-level principles, but I’m not sure how to rigorously separate those.
The alternative is saying that the chronophone only lets you remind your enemies to live up to their own principles, which isn’t nothing, but which in theory you should be able to do equally well without a chronophone/mind control ray/whatever.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s actually very easy to figure out what to say into Stalin’s Chronophone once you notice the pattern: you need to further steelman Stalin. You can say something like this: “I understand the motivation behind your actions, and I recognize that in many parts they were incredibly efficient. I realize that even half a century after your death Russia will still rely on the infrastructure you commanded to build, and that the speed of that construction work will be unmatched in Russia ever since, and only matched decades later by the communist comrades from China. Your name will be remembered in awe even after traitors sabotage and destroy the country that you’ve built (not that they managed to do it completely), and in the time of the deepest misery they will wish you could have come to fix the country”.
This is because the meta-level idea that’s equally hard for both of you to accept, but both of you can theoretically value is “I can understand my enemy, and very seriously consider the possibility that he’s right, even though I have to fight the temptation to kill him with a flamethrower”. Thus, the above paragraph will translate into something along the lines of “You should really consider what this FDR guy is doing, and especially the constitution he sworn to protect – they really know what’s up, trust me”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
> you can’t say “call trans women by their correct pronouns”, because you believe that trans women are women and transphobes don’t, so it will be translated into “misgender trans women.”
Actually, this one will be translated as “call trans ‘women’ by their correct pronouns”. Everyone agrees you should use the correct pronouns. They just disagree about what those are!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: On QALYs | Thing of Things
Pingback: The World Is Mad | Thing of Things
… and not one mention of Kant in the entire comment thread?
Categorical Imperative, yo.
LikeLike
Pingback: Eudaimonia, Part Two | Thing of Things
Reblogged this on autisticagainstantivaxxers.
LikeLike
Pingback: Precedent Utilitarianism: A Primer – Zachary Jacobi
Pingback: Yes, this is a hill worth dying on | H i v e w i r e d
Pingback: The Precept of Niceness | H i v e w i r e d
Pingback: Precedent Utilitarianism: A Primer | Socratic Form Microscopy
Pingback: Moral Precepts and Suicide Pacts | Perfecting Dated Visions
Pingback: Insightful articles on free speech & social justice – Julia Galef