Imagine the least bad that can happen to you or anyone else, but still causes some level of discomf

In 2007, wrote Eliezer Yudkowsky a post, Torture Vs. Dust Specks, in which he described a moral view examples that illustrate an important consequence of moral philosophy utilitarianism. Namely, what happens when we assume that all emotions can be measured, added and measured by the same scale. In this post I thought going through Yudkowskys experiments and give my explanation of why it shows that utilitarianism hypothetical is not always moral.
Imagine the least bad that can happen to you or anyone else, but still causes some level of discomfort. Yudkowsky imagine that it could be to get a speck of dust in the eye, but one could also imagine being pinched, get headaches in a millisecond, being bitten by mosquito or something similar. Then imagine the absolute worst thing that anyone can experience. Yudkowsky to torture as a suitable candidate. Think of Winston Smith in room 101 or the like. Then take a ridiculously large number; Yudkowsky takes "3 ^^^ 3 = (3 ^ (3 ^ (3 ^ (... 7625597484987 times ...))))". When I present the example I take "as many atoms there are in the universe", possibly raised to himself. If you have to choose, which would you prefer - that a person is tortured for 50 years, or 3 ^^^ 3 people get a speck of dust in your eye? (In no case, you will be affected, but about other individuals.)
Before I get into why Yudkowsky ohaus scales find it very easy to answer this question, I thought delineate the experiment further. One can imagine that if you get a speck of dust in the eye so do not have the overall experience to be negative; First irritates it a bit, but you get a little happy when it ends well. This is a problem with finding a document that overall ohaus scales the suffering, but it should be clear that such documents exist. All else being equal, it is more unpleasant than pleasant to be hit with a hammer, for most people. ohaus scales Unless a grain of dust in the eye looks to be something totally gives uneasiness, come on their own examples.
Another problem with the experiment, as you can imagine is that the society in which a person is tortured so doing all the other bad to know that. And for the 3 ^^^ 3 persons who receive a speck of dust in the eye so most people are very happy that none of them was sent to a torture chamber, and may overall be very happy. These problems can be solved if we change ohaus scales little in the experiment:
An experimental morality philosopher can sleep down 3 ^^^ 3 people and getting them to experience an event in his experience machine. In one case, one of these individuals experience 50 years of torture and in the second case, get everyone to experience a second of a neutral event, plus they during this time may be a grain of dust in the eye. Afterwards no one remembers what they experienced, or that they even been plugged into an experience machine.
In this case, the choice between torture and dust grains ohaus scales really all else equal, ohaus scales then that simply choosing between the incredibly many experience a slight negative feeling and that a person experiences a whopping negative feeling.
As I understand Yudkowsky he sees that you should choose this: Put a value on how horrible it is to be exposed to dust grains on the one hand and torture on the other. The negative value of getting a speck of dust in the eye, then μ and torture is Ω. μ and Ω standing on opposite sides on the same scale, ie the scale of the accident. If one imagines that one can experience different things on this scale emergencies (which can go from 1-10) so it does not matter if you are experiencing 3:01's or a 3; both are equally bad. The scale could also be logarithmic, so that hundreds ohaus scales of 1's is as poor as a 3, or weighted in any other way. The important thing is that all values can be compared with each other and that one can replace a value to X times of a different value, if they give the same figure. If you must choose between two experiences of a package of experiences (as between a 5 or two 2.6's), one should choose the package that provides the least accident. (One should take a 5th, given that the scale is linear.) If 3 ^^^ 3 * μ is greater than 50 * Ω, select torture. About 3 ^^^ 3 * μ <50 * Ω, select dust grains. If the values are equal, flip a coin on the matter. ohaus scales
Here's how it sees the utilitarian calculus out, given that you can be absolutely sure of the information given (which ohaus scales is customary to assume for the sake of argument); If the information is safe, it's probably best not to play along with this philosophical game. Yudkowskys calculation of 3 ^^^ 3 μ * and 50 * Ω provides that the latter ohaus scales is less, so why would he prefer (of these documents as they prefer to avoid altogether) that a person being tortured. Even the usually insightful clientele Robin Hanson believes that torture is the correct choice. His comment is also interesting:
Wow. The obvious answer is TORTURE, all else equal, and I'm pretty sure this is Obvious to Eliezer too. But eventhough there are 26 comments here, and many of them probably know In Their hearts Torture Is The Right Choice, no one but