Sapiens: How Shared Myths Change the World

I recently read Yuval Noah Harari’s book Sapiens and loved it. In additional to fascinating and disturbing details about the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens and a wonderful account of human history, he has a really interesting way of talking about the cognitive abilities that make humans distinct from other species. I’ll dive right into this latter topic in this post.

Imagine two people in a prisoner’s dilemma. To try to make it relevant to our ancestral environment, let’s say that they are strangers running into one another, and each see that the other has some resources. There are four possible outcomes. First, they could both cooperate and team up to catch some food that neither would be able to get on their own, and then share the food. Second, they could both defect, attacking each other and both walking away badly injured. And third and fourth, one could cooperate while the other defects, corresponding to one of them stabbing the other in the back and taking their resources. (Let’s suppose that each of the two are currently holding resources of more value than they could obtain by teaming up and hunting.)

Now, the problem is that on standard accounts of rational decision making, the decision that maximizes expected reward for each individual is to defect. That’s bad! The best outcome for everybody is that the two team up and share the loot, and neither walks away injured!

You might just respond “Well, who cares about what our theory of rational decision making says? Humans aren’t rational.” We’ll come back to this in a bit. But for now I’ll say that the problem is not just that our theory of rationality says that we should defect. It’s that this line of reasoning implies that cooperating is an unstable strategy. Imagine a society fully populated with cooperators. Now suppose an individual appears with a mutation that causes them to defect. This defector outperforms the cooperators, because they get to keep stabbing people in the back and stealing their loot and never have to worry about anybody doing the same to them. The result is then that the “gene for defecting” (speaking very metaphorically at this point; the behavior doesn’t necessarily have to be transmitted genetically) spreads like a virus through the population, eventually transforming our society of cooperators to a society of defectors. And everybody’s worse off.

One the other hand, imagine a society full of defectors. What if a cooperator is born into this society? Well, they pretty much right away get stabbed in the back and die out. So a society of defectors stays a society of defectors, and a society of cooperators degenerates into a society of defectors. The technical way of speaking about this is to say that in prisoner’s dilemmas, cooperation is not a Nash equilibrium – a strategy that is stable against mutations when universally adopted. The only Nash equilibrium is universal defection.

Okay, so this is all bad news. We have good game theoretic reasons to expect society to degenerate into a bunch of people stabbing each other in the back. But mysteriously, the record of history has humans coming together to form larger and larger cooperative institutions. What Yuval Noah Harari and many others argue is that the distinctively human force that saves us from these game theoretic traps and creates civilizations is the power of shared myths.

For instance, suppose that the two strangers happened to share a belief in a powerful all-knowing God that punishes defectors in the afterlife and rewards cooperators. Think about how this shifts the reasoning. Now each person thinks “Even if I successfully defect and loot this other person’s resources, I still will have hell to pay in the afterlife. It’s just not worth it to risk incurring God’s wrath! I’ll cooperate.” And thus we get a cooperative equilibrium!

Still you might object “Okay, but what if an atheist is born into this society of God-fearing cooperative people? They’ll begin defecting and successfully spread through the population, right? And then so much for your cooperative equilibrium.”

The superbly powerful thing about these shared myths is the way in which they can restructure society around them. So for instance, it would make sense for a society with the cooperator-punishing God myth to develop social norms around punishing defectors. The mythical punishment becomes an actual real-world punishment by the myth’s adherents. And this is enough to tilt the game-theoretic balance even for atheists.

The point being: The spreading of a powerful shared myth can shift the game theoretic structure of the world, altering the landscape of possible social structures. What’s more, such myths can increase the overall fitness of a society. And we need not rely on group selection arguments here; the presence of the shared myth increases the fitness of every individual.

A deeper point is that the specific way in which the landscape is altered depends on the details of the shared myth. So if we contrast the God myth above to a God that punishes defectors but also punishes mortals who punish defectors, we lose the stability property that we sought. The suggestion being: different ideas alter the game theoretic balance of the world in different ways, and sometimes subtle differences can be hugely important.

Another take-away from this simple example is that shared myths can become embodied within us, both in our behavior and in our physiology. Thus we come back to the “humans aren’t rational” point: The cooperator equilibrium becomes more stable if the God myth somehow becomes hardwired into our brains. These ideas take hold of us and shape us in their image.

Let’s go further into this. In our sophisticated secular society, it’s not too controversial to refer to the belief in all-good and all-knowing gods as a myth. But Yuval Noah Harari goes further. To him, the concept of the shared myth goes much deeper than just our ideas about the supernatural. In fact, most of our native way of viewing the world consists of a network of shared myths and stories that we tell one another.

After all, the universe is just physics. We’re atoms bumping into one another. There are no particles of fairness or human rights, no quantum fields for human meaning or karmic debts. These are all shared myths. Economic systems consist of mostly shared stories that we tell each other, stories about how much a dollar bill is worth and what the stock price of Amazon is. None of these things are really out there in the world. They are in our brains, and they are there for an important reason: they open up the possibility for societal structures that would otherwise be completely impossible. Imagine having a global trade network without the shared myth of the value of money. Or a group of millions of humans living packed together in a city that didn’t all on some level believe in the myths of human value and respect.

Just think about this for a minute. Humans have this remarkable ability to radically change our way of interacting with one another and our environments by just changing the stories that we tell one another. We are able to do this because of two features of our brains. First, we are extraordinarily creative. We can come up with ideas like money and God and law and democracy and whole-heartedly believe in them, to the point that we are willing to sacrifice our lives for them. Second, we are able to communicate these ideas to one another. This allows the ideas to spread and become shared myths. And most remarkably, all of these ideas (capitalism and communism, democracy and fascism) are running on essentially the same hardware! In Harari’s words:

While the behaviour patterns of archaic humans remained fixed for tens of thousands of years, Sapiens could transform their social structures, the nature of their interpersonal relations, their economic activities and a host of other behaviours within a decade or two. Consider a resident of Berlin, born in 1900 and living to the ripe age of one hundred. She spent her childhood in the Hohenzollern Empire of Wilhelm II; her adult years in the Weimar Republic, the Nazi Third Reich and Communist East Germany; and she died a citizen of a democratic and reunited Germany. She had managed to be a part of five very different sociopolitical systems, though her DNA remained exactly the same.

Against moral realism

Here’s my primary problem with moral realism: I can’t think of any acceptable epistemic framework that would give us a way to justifiably update our beliefs in the objective truth of moral claims. I.e. I can’t think of any reasonable account of how we could have justified beliefs in objectively true moral principles.

Here’s a sketch of a plausible-seeming account of epistemology. Broad-strokes, there are two sources of justified belief: deduction and induction.

Deduction refers to the process by which we define some axioms and then see what logically follows from them. So, for instance, the axioms of Peano Arithmetic entail the theorem that 1+1=2 – or, in Peano’s language, S(0) + S(0) = S(S(0)). The central reason why reasoning by deduction is reliable is that the truths established are true by definition – they are made true by the way we have constructed our terms, and are thus true in every possible world.

Induction is scientific reasoning – it is the process of taking prior beliefs, observing evidence, and then updating these beliefs (via Bayes’ rule, for instance). The central reason why induction is reliable comes from the notion of causal entanglement. When we make an observation and update our beliefs based upon this observation, the brain state “believes X” has become causally entangled with the truth of the the statement X. So, for instance, if I observe a positive result on a pregnancy test, then my belief in the statement “I am pregnant” has become causally entangled with the truth of the statement “I am pregnant.” It is exactly this that justifies our use of induction in reasoning about the world.

Now, where do moral claims fall? They are not derived from deductive reasoning… that is, we cannot just arbitrarily define right and wrong however we like, and then derive morality from these definitions.

And they are also not truths that can be established through inductive reasoning; after all, objective moral truths are not the types of things that have any causal effects on the world.

In other words, even if there are objective moral truths, we would have no way of forming justified beliefs about this. To my mind, this is a pretty devastating situation for a moral realist. Think about it like this: a moral realist who doesn’t think that moral truths have causal power over the world must accept that all of their beliefs about morality are completely causally independent of their truth. If we imagine keeping all the descriptive truths about the world fixed, and only altering the normative truths, then none of the moral realist’s moral beliefs would change.

So how do they know that they’re in the world where their moral beliefs actually do align with the moral reality? Can they point to any reason why their moral beliefs are more likely to be true than any other moral statements? As far as I can tell, no, they can’t!

Now, you might just object to the particular epistemology I’ve offered up, and suggest some new principle by which we can become acquainted with moral truth. This is the path of many professional philosophers I have talked to.

But every attempt that I’ve heard of for doing this begs the question or resorts to just gesturing at really deeply held intuitions of objectivity. If you talk to philosophers, you’ll hear appeals to a mysterious cognitive ability to reflect on concepts and “detect their intrinsic properties”, even if these properties have no way of interacting with the world, or elaborate descriptions of the nature of “self-evident truths.”

(Which reminds me of this meme)

self-evident-truth-5153703.png

None of this deals with the central issue in moral epistemology, as I see it. This central issue is: How can a moral realist think that their beliefs about morality are any more likely to be true than any random choice of a moral framework?

Constructing the world

In this six and a half hour lecture series by David Chalmers, he describes the concept of a minimal set of statements from which all other truths are a priori “scrutable” (meaning, basically, in-principle knowable or derivable).

What are the types of statements in this minimal set required to construct the world? Chalmers offers up four categories, and abbreviates this theory PQIT.

P

P is the set of physical facts (for instance, everything that would be accessible to a Laplacean demon). It can be thought of as essentially the initial conditions of the universe and the laws governing their changes over time.

Q

Q is the set of facts about qualitative experience. We can see Chalmers’ rejection of physicalism here, as he doesn’t think that Q is eclipsed within P. Example of a type of statement that cannot be derived from P without Q: “There is a beige region in the bottom right of my visual field.”

I

Here’s a true statement: “I’m in the United States.” Could this be derivable from P and Q? Presumably not; we need another set of indexical truths that allows us to have “self-locating” beliefs and to engage in anthropic reasoning.

T

Suppose that P, Q, and I really are able to capture all the true statements there are to be captured. Well then, the statement “P, Q, and I really are able to capture all the true statements there are to be captured” is a true statement, and it is presumably not captured by P, Q, and I! In other words, we need some final negative statements that tell us that what we have is enough, and that there are no more truths out there. These “that’s all”-type statements are put into the set T.

⁂⁂⁂

So this is a basic sketch of Chalmer’s construction. I like that we can use these tags like PQIT or PT or QIT as a sort of philosophical zip-code indicating the core features of a person’s philosophical worldview. I also want to think about developing this further. What other possible types of statements are there out there that may not be captured in PQIT? Here is a suggestion for a more complete taxonomy:

p    microphysics
P    macrophysics (by which I mean all of science besides fundamental physics)
Q    consciousness
R    normative rationality
E    
normative ethics
C    counterfactuals
L    
mathematical / logical truths
I     indexicals
T    “that’s-all” statements

I’ve split P into big-P (macrophysics) and little-p (microphysics) to account for the disagreements about emergence and reductionism. Normativity here is broad enough to include both normative epistemic statements (e.g. “You should increase your credence in the next coin toss landing H after observing it land H one hundred times in a row”) and ethical statements. The others are fairly self-explanatory.

The most ontologically extravagant philosophical worldview would then be characterized as pPQRECLIT.

My philosophical address is pRLIT (with the addendum that I think C comes from p, and am really confused about Q). What’s yours?

Moving Naturalism Forward: Eliminating the macroscopic

Sean Carroll, one of my favorite physicists and armchair philosophers, hosted a fantastic conference on philosophical naturalism and science, and did the world a great favor by recording the whole thing and posting it online. It was a three-day long discussion on topics like the nature of reality, emergence, morality, free will, meaning, and consciousness. Here are the videos for the first two discussion sections, and the rest can be found by following Youtube links.

 

Having watched through the entire thing, I have updated a few of my beliefs, plan to rework some of my conceptual schema, and am puzzled about a few things.

A few of my reflections and take-aways:

  1. I am much more convinced than before that there is a good case to be made for compatibilism about free will.
  2. I think there is a set of interesting and challenging issues around the concept of representation and intentionality (about-ness) that I need to look into.
  3. I am more comfortable with intense reductionism claims, like “All fact about the macroscopic world are entailed by the fundamental laws of physics.”
  4. I am really interested in hearing Dan Dennett talk more about grounding morality, because what he said was starting to make a lot of sense to me.
  5. I am confused about the majority attitude in the room that there’s not any really serious reason to take an eliminativist stance about macroscopic objects.
  6. I want to find more details about the argument that Simon DeDeo was making for the undecidability of questions about the relationship between macroscopic theories and microscopic theories (!!!).
  7. There’s a good way to express the distinction between the type of design human architects engage in and the type of design that natural selection produces, which is about foresight and representations of reasons. I’m not going to say more about this, and will just refer you to the videos.
  8. There are reasons to suspect that animal intelligence and capacity to suffer are inversely correlated (that is, the more intelligent an animal, the less capacity to suffer it likely has). This really flips some of our moral judgements on their head. (You must deliver a painful electric shock to either a human or to a bird. Which one will you choose?)

Let me say a little more about number 5.

I think that questions about whether macroscopic objects like chairs or plants really REALLY exist, or whether there are really only just fermions and bosons are ultimately just questions about how we should use the word “exist.” In the language of our common sense intuitions, obviously chairs exist, and if you claim otherwise, you’re just playing complicated semantic games. I get this argument, and I don’t want to be that person that clings to bizarre philosophical theses that rest on a strange choice of definitions.

But at the same time, I see a deep problem with relying on our commonsense intuitions about the existence of the macro world. This is that as soon as we start optimizing for consistency, even a teeny tiny bit, these macroscopic concepts fall to pieces.

For example, here is a trilemma (three statements that can’t all be correct):

  1. The thing I am sitting on is a chair.
  2. If you subtract a single atom from a chair, it is still a chair.
  3. Empty space is not a chair.

These seem to me to be some of the most obvious things we could say about chairs. And yet they are subtly incoherent!

Number 1 is really shorthand for something like “there are chairs.” And the reason why the second premise is correct is that denying it requires that there be a chair such that if you remove a single atom, it is no longer a chair. I take it to be obvious that such things don’t exist. But accepting the first two requires us to admit that as we keep shedding atoms from a chair, it stays a chair, even down to the very last atom. (By the way, some philosophers do actually deny number 2. They take a stance called epistemicism, which says that concepts like “chair” and “heap” are actually precise and unambiguous, and there exists a precise point at which a chair becomes a non-chair. This is the type of thing that makes me giggle nervously when reflecting on the adequacy of philosophy as a field.)

As I’ve pointed out in the past, these kinds of arguments can be applied to basically everything in the macroscopic world. They wreak havoc on our common sense intuitions and, to my mind, demand rejection of the entire macroscopic world. And of course, they don’t apply to the microscopic world. “If X is an electron, and you change its electric charge a tiny bit, is it still an electron?” No! Electrons are physical substances with precise and well-defined properties, and if something doesn’t have these properties, it is not an electron! So the Standard Model is safe from this class of arguments.

Anyway, this is all just to make the case that upon close examination, our commonsense intuitions about the macroscopic world turn out to be subtly incoherent. What this means is that we can’t make true statements like “There are two cars in the garage”. Why? Just start removing atoms from the cars until you get to a completely empty garage. Since no single-atom change can make the relevant difference to “car-ness”, at each stage, you’ll still have two cars!

As soon as you start taking these macroscopic concepts seriously, you find yourself stuck in a ditch. This, to me, is an incredibly powerful argument for eliminativism, and I was surprised to find that arguments like these weren’t stressed at the conference. This makes me wonder if this argument is as powerful as I think.

Defining racism

How would you define racism?

I’ve been thinking about this lately in light of some of the scandal around research into race and IQ. It’s a harder question than I initially thought; many of the definitions that pop to mind end up being either too strong or too weak. The term also functions differently in different contexts (e.g. personal racism, institutional racism, racist policies). In this post, I’m specifically talking about personal racism – that term we use to refer to the beliefs and attitudes of those like Nazis or Ku Klux Klan members (at the extreme end).

I’m going to walk through a few possible definitions. This will be fairly stream-of-consciousness, so I apologize if it’s not incredibly profound or well-structured.

Definition 1 Racism is the belief in the existence of inherent differences between the races.

‘Inherent’ is important, because we don’t want to say that somebody is racist for acknowledging differences that can ultimately be traced back to causes like societal oppression. The problem with this definition is that, well, there are inherent differences between the races.

The Chinese are significantly shorter than the Dutch. Raising a Chinese person in a Dutch household won’t do much to equalize this difference. What’s important, it seems, is not the belief in the existence of inherent differences, but instead the belief in the existence of inherent inferiorities and superiorities. So let’s try again.

Definition 2 Racism is the belief in the existence of inherent racial differences that are normatively significant.

This is pretty much the dictionary definition of the term “racism”. While it’s better, there are still some serious problems. Let’s say that somebody discovered that the Slavs are more inherently prone to violence than, say, Arabs. Suppose that somebody ran across this fact, and that this person also held the ethical view that violent tendencies are normatively important. That is, they think that peaceful people are ethically superior to violent people.

If they combine this factual belief with this seemingly reasonable normative belief, they’ll end up being branded as a racist, by our second definition. This is clearly undesirable… given that the word ‘racism’ is highly normatively loaded, we don’t want it to be the case that somebody is racist for believing true things. In other words, we probably don’t want our definition of racism to ever allow it to be the right attitude to take, or even a reasonable attitude to take.

Maybe the missing step is the generalization of attitudes about Slavs and Arabs to individuals. This is a sentiment that I’ve heard fairly often… racism is about applying generalizations about groups to individuals (for instance, racial profiling). Let’s formalize this:

Definition 3 Racism is about forming normative judgments about individuals’ characteristics on the basis of beliefs about normative group-level differences.

This sounds nice and all, but… you know what another term for “applying facts about groups to individuals” is? Good statistical reasoning.

If you live in a town composed of two distinct populations, the Hebbeberans and the Klabaskians, and you know that Klabaskians are on average twenty times more likely than Hebbeberans to be fatally allergic to cod, then you should be more cautious with serving your extra special cod sandwich to a Klabaskian friend than to a Hebbeberan.

Facts about populations do give you evidence about individuals within those populations, and the mere acknowledgement of this evidence is not racist, for the same reason that rationality is not racist.

So if we don’t want to call rationality racist, then maybe our way out of this is to identify racism with irrationality.

Definition 4 Racism is the holding of irrational beliefs about normative racial differences.

Say you meet somebody from Malawi (a region with an extremely low average IQ). Your first rational instinct might be to not expect too much from them in the way of cognitive abilities. But now you learn that they’re a theoretical physicist who’s recently been nominated for a Nobel prize for their work in quantum information theory. If the average IQ of Malawians is still factoring in at all to your belief about this person’s intelligence, then you’re being racist.

I like this definition a lot better than our previous ones. It combines the belief in racial superiority with irrationality. On the other hand, it has problems as well. One major issue is that there are plenty of cases of benign irrationality, where somebody is just a bad statistical reasoner, but not motivated by any racial hatred. Maybe they over-updated on some piece of information, because they failed to take into account an important base-rate.

Well, the base-rate fallacy is one of the most common cognitive biases out there. Surely this isn’t enough to make them a racist? What we want is to capture the non-benign brand of irrational normative beliefs about race – those that are motivated by hatred or prejudice.

Definition 5 Racism is the holding of irrational normative beliefs about racial differences, motivated by racial hatred or prejudice.

I think this does the best at avoiding making the category too large, but it may be too strong and keep out some plausible cases of racism. I’d like to hear suggestions for improvements on this definition, but for now I’ll leave it there. One potential take-away is that the word ‘racism’ is a nasty combination of highly negatively charged and ambiguous, and that such words are best treated with caution, especially when applied them to edge cases.

The Scourge of Our Time

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2270, 2274

In this paper, Toby Ord advances a strong reductio ad absurdum of the standard pro-life position that life begins at conception. I’ve heard versions of this argument before, but hadn’t seen it laid out so clearly.

Here’s the argument:

  1. The majority (~62%) of embryos die within a few weeks of conception (mostly from failure to implant in the lining of the uterus wall). A mother of three children could be expected to also have had five spontaneous abortions.
  2. The Catholic Church promotes the premise that an embryo at conception has the same moral worth as a developed human. On this view, more than 60% of the world population dies in their first month of life, making this a more deadly condition than anything else in human history. Saving even 5% of embryos would save more lives than a cure for cancer.

  3. Given the 200 million lives per year at stake, those that think life begins at conception should be directing massive amounts of resources towards ending spontaneous abortion and see it as the Scourge of our time.

Here are two graphs of the US survival curve: first, as we ordinarily see it, and second, as the pro-lifer is obligated to see it:

Screen Shot 2018-04-05 at 2.22.12 PMScreen Shot 2018-04-05 at 2.22.22 PM

This is of course a really hard bullet for the pro-life camp to bite. If you’re like me, you see spontaneous abortions as morally neutral. Most of the time they happen before a pregnancy has been detected, leaving the mother unaware that anything even happened. It’s hard then to make a distinction between the enormous amount of spontaneous abortions naturally occurring and the comparatively minuscule number of intentional abortions.

I have previously had mixed feelings about abortion (after all, if our moral decision making ultimately comes down to trying to maximize some complicated expected value, it will likely be blind to whether is a real living being or just a “potential” living being), but this argument pretty much clinches the deal for me.

Where I am with utilitarianism

Morality is one of those weird areas where I have an urge to systematize my intuitions, despite believing that these intuitions don’t reflect any objective features of the world.

In the language of model selection, it feels like I’m trying to fit the data of my moral intuitions to some simple underlying model, and not overfit to the noise in the data. But the concept of  “noise” here makes little sense… if I were really a moral nihilist, then I would see the only sensible task with respect to ethics as a descriptive task: describe my moral psychology and the moral psychology of others. If ethics is like aesthetics, fundamentally a matter of complex individual preferences, then there is no reality to be found by paring down your moral framework into a tight neat package.

You can do a good job at analyzing how your moral cognitive system works and trying to understand the reasons that it is the way it is. But once you’ve managed a sufficiently detailed description of your moral intuitions, then it seems like you’ve exhausted the realm of interesting ethical thinking. Any other tasks seem to rely on some notion of an actual moral truth out there that you’re trying to fit your intuitions to, or at least a notion of your “true” moral beliefs as a simple set of principles from which your moral feelings and intuitions arise.

Despite the fact that I struggle to see any rational reason for systematize ethics, I find myself doing so fairly often. The strongest systematizing urge I feel in analyzing ethics is the urge towards generality. A simple general description that successfully captures many of my moral intuitions feels much better than a complicated high-order description of many disconnected intuitions.

This naturally leads to issues with consistency. If you are satisfied with just describing your moral intuitions in every situation, then you can never really be faced with accusations of inconsistency. Inconsistency arises when you claim to agree with a general moral principle, and yet have moral feelings that contradict this principle.

It’s the difference between ‘It was unjust when X shot Y the other day in location Z” and “It is unjust for people to shoot each other”. The first doesn’t entail any conclusions about other similar scenarios, while the second entails an infinity of moral beliefs about similar scenarios.

Now, getting to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the (initially nice-sounding) moral principle that moral action is that which maximizes happiness (/ well-being / sentient flourishing / positive conscious experiences). In any situation, the moral calculation done by a utilitarian is to impartially consider the consequences of all possible actions on the happiness of all other conscious beings, and then take the action that maximizes your expected value.

While the basic premise seems obviously correct upon first consideration, a lot of the conclusions that this style of thinking ends up endorsing seem horrifically immoral. A hard-line utilitarian approach to ethics yields prescriptions for actions that are highly unintuitive to me. Here’s one of the strongest intuition-pumps I know of for why utilitarianism is wrong:

Suppose that there is a doctor that has decided to place one of his patients under anesthesia and then rape them. This doctor has never done anything like this before, and would never do anything like it again afterwards. He is incredibly careful to not leave any evidence, or any noticeable after-effects on the patient whatsoever (neither physical nor mental). In addition, he will forget that he ever did this soon after the patient leaves. In short, the world will be exactly the same one day down the line whether he rapes his patient or not. The only difference in terms of states of consciousness between the world in which he commits the violation and the world in which he does not, will be a momentary pleasurable orgasm that the doctor will experience.

In front of you sits a button. If you press this button, then a nurse assistant will enter the room, preventing the doctor from being alone with the patient and thus preventing the rape. If you don’t, then the doctor will rape his patient just as he has planned. Whether or not you press the button has no other consequences on anybody, including yourself (e.g., if knowing that you hadn’t prevented the rape would make you feel bad, then you will instantly forget that you had anything to do with it immediately after pressing the button.)

Two questions:

1. Is it wrong for the doctor to commit the rape?

2. Should you press the button to stop the doctor?

The utilitarian is committed to answer ‘Yes’ to the first question and ‘No’ to the second.

As far as I can tell, there is no way out of this conclusion for Question 1. Question 2 allows a little more wiggle room; one might say that it is impossible that whether or not you press the button has no effect on your own mental state as you press it, unless you are completely without conscience. A follow-up question might then be whether you should temporarily disable your conscience, if you could, in order to neutralize the negative mental consequences of pressing the button. Again, the utilitarian seems to give the wrong answer.

This thought experiment is pushing on our intuitions about autonomy and consent, which are only considered as instrumentally valuable by the utilitarian, rather than intrinsically so. If you feel pretty icky about utilitarianism right now, then, well… I said it was the strongest anti-utilitarian intuition pump I know.

With that said, how can we formalize a system of ethics that takes into account not just happiness, but also the intrinsic importance of things like autonomy and consent? As far as I’ve seen, every such attempt ends up looking really shabby and accepting unintuitive moral conclusions of its own. And among all of the ethical systems that I’ve seen, only utilitarianism does as good a job at capturing so many of my ethical intuitions in such a simple formalization.

So this is where I am at with utilitarianism. I intrinsically value a bunch of things besides happiness. If I am simply engaging in the purely descriptive project of ethics, then I am far from a utilitarian. But the more I systematize my ethical framework, the more utilitarian I become. If I heavily optimize for consistency, I end up a hard-line utilitarian, biting all of the nasty bullets in favor of the simplicity and generality of the utilitarian framework. I’m just not sure why I should spend so much mental effort systematizing my ethical framework.

This puts me in a strange position when it comes to actually making decisions in my life. While I don’t find myself in positions in which the utilitarian option is as horrifically immoral as in the thought experiment I’ve presented here, I still am sometimes in situations where maximizing net happiness looks like it involves behaving in ways that seem intuitively immoral. I tend to default towards the non-utilitarian option in these situations, but don’t have any great principled reason for doing so.