The main problem here is that this is an fundamentally unserious proposition. 10!! exceeds the number of people who will ever live by about 10!!. It is not necessary to argue that at some point the dust specs are worse than torture, because that point quite obviously is not physically possible to achieve.
The quantifiable utility units seem like less of a problem. Other concerns though -
1] Qualitative judgements are an issue. Getting a dust speck in my eye is a minor inconvenience. Even if I aggregate the total dust specks (assuming that these dust specks are dispersed through the population and do not torture anyone), the nature of getting dust in the eyes is still the same. It's overall a minor inconvenience
2] How do you weigh the value of biological life and death against dust specks? If life /= infinite value then could a non-death impact outweigh a death impact
10!!! minor inconveniences is more suffering than has been experienced in human history. Life obviously doesn't have infinite value so a non death impact could outweigh a death impact. Making everyone miserable all the time would be worse than one death,.
This is incorrect. The argument here relies on the assumption that you can turn every type of negative thing into a set number of utility units that can be mathematically weighed and calculated against. However there are some thresholds of things, which could be implicated in the torture versus dust specks scenario, that cause that to break down.
No part of the argument relies on that assumption. If you think there is some qualitative infinite jump, that would be the point at which there's a firm threshold. There are also a plethora of arguments in this post. Finally, suffering does exist in a scale--any super miserable torture could be made continually slightly less terrible.
The main problem here is that this is an fundamentally unserious proposition. 10!! exceeds the number of people who will ever live by about 10!!. It is not necessary to argue that at some point the dust specs are worse than torture, because that point quite obviously is not physically possible to achieve.
We imagine, for the purpose of the hypothetical, that there are some vast number of people--far more than 10!!!.
The quantifiable utility units seem like less of a problem. Other concerns though -
1] Qualitative judgements are an issue. Getting a dust speck in my eye is a minor inconvenience. Even if I aggregate the total dust specks (assuming that these dust specks are dispersed through the population and do not torture anyone), the nature of getting dust in the eyes is still the same. It's overall a minor inconvenience
2] How do you weigh the value of biological life and death against dust specks? If life /= infinite value then could a non-death impact outweigh a death impact
10!!! minor inconveniences is more suffering than has been experienced in human history. Life obviously doesn't have infinite value so a non death impact could outweigh a death impact. Making everyone miserable all the time would be worse than one death,.
This is incorrect. The argument here relies on the assumption that you can turn every type of negative thing into a set number of utility units that can be mathematically weighed and calculated against. However there are some thresholds of things, which could be implicated in the torture versus dust specks scenario, that cause that to break down.
No part of the argument relies on that assumption. If you think there is some qualitative infinite jump, that would be the point at which there's a firm threshold. There are also a plethora of arguments in this post. Finally, suffering does exist in a scale--any super miserable torture could be made continually slightly less terrible.