"If somebody stole my jacket - and ate it, so I couldn't get it back - and was very unlikely to steal again from me personally, you might think at first that the Law would say that it's not in my own interest to spend effort hunting them down, if I didn't feel an impulse to vengeance."

"But imagine that there's ten people, labeled 1 through 10, from whom a thief is going to steal 5 gold pieces each, in a random order.  The thief never hits the same target twice, ever.  It costs 10gp to catch the thief."

"By ill-luck, I'm the first person on the list.  And I don't, particularly, care about the other people on the list.  Why, I don't even have any idea who they are!  So how is it worth my while to spend 10gp on catching somebody who only cost me 5gp originally and isn't going to touch me again in the future?"

"But if you think about it from the perspective of the ten people on the list, not knowing yet which one of them will be the first target hit by the thief, they'd rather a policy that whichever one of them gets hit first, spends 10 gold to track the thief down.  If they don't have that policy, they lose 5gp with certainty.  If they do have that policy, they lose 15gp with 10% probability, else 0gp."

"Now, I could carefully reason all that out Lawfully, from scratch, after the thief targets me, and motivate myself only by the thought of how I would've wanted the collective policy to be that whoever had the bad luck to end up in my position, would spend 10gp to hunt down the thief that already cost them 5gp."

"Or I could draw on my emotion about revenge, and hunt down the bastard who stole my jacket, even if that cost me a lot more additional money on top of what was stolen from me.  After checking very carefully to make sure that was also what the Law said to do, and not a case of me trying to get away with inverting somebody else's utility function in an attempt to motivate people like that through the threat of 'punishment', because that, they'd just ignore, or maybe have an incentive to kill me in my sleep before I could go around inverting their utility function.  Kids with stronger Good tendencies than mine are cautioned 'do not try to optimize society in anger', meaning that it's generally considered more dangerous than that to tell yourself that you're hurting somebody else for the public benefit - which I'm safer about, because, like, selfish, so I didn't get cautioned as much there."

"But the point is that Civilization doesn't tell you to flush the emotion of revenge out of yourself and never use it again because it's not Lawful.  It says to check the Law first, once you've been trained to be able to actually compute that validly, and use the feeling of vengeance to fuel moving through the structures of Law when those structures are close enough to the emotion.  After you've checked that it's not going to wreck society if everyone starts acting like that, and that you're not turning into a rogue utility-function inverter that other people have an incentive to exile or cryosuspend before you hurt them next, etcetera."

"If somebody stole my jacket - and ate it, so I couldn't get it back - and was very unlikely to steal again from me personally, you might think at first that the Law would say that it's not in my own interest to spend effort hunting them down, if I didn't feel an impulse to vengeance."

"But imagine that there's ten people, labeled 1 through 10, from whom a thief is going to steal 5 gold pieces each, in a random order.  The thief never hits the same target twice, ever.  It costs 10gp to catch the thief."

"By ill-luck, I'm the first person on the list.  And I don't, particularly, care about the other people on the list.  Why, I don't even have any idea who they are!  So how is it worth my while to spend 10gp on catching somebody who only cost me 5gp originally and isn't going to touch me again in the future?"

"But if you think about it from the perspective of the ten people on the list, not knowing yet which one of them will be the first target hit by the thief, they'd rather a policy that whichever one of them gets hit first, spends 10 gold to track the thief down.  If they don't have that policy, they lose 5gp with certainty.  If they do have that policy, they lose 15gp with 10% probability, else 0gp."

"Now, I could carefully reason all that out Lawfully, from scratch, after the thief targets me, and motivate myself only by the thought of how I would've wanted the collective policy to be that whoever had the bad luck to end up in my position, would spend 10gp to hunt down the thief that already cost them 5gp."

"Or I could draw on my emotion about revenge, and hunt down the bastard who stole my jacket, even if that cost me a lot more additional money on top of what was stolen from me.  After checking very carefully to make sure that was also what the Law said to do, and not a case of me trying to get away with inverting somebody else's utility function in an attempt to motivate people like that through the threat of 'punishment', because that, they'd just ignore, or maybe have an incentive to kill me in my sleep before I could go around inverting their utility function.  Kids with stronger Good tendencies than mine are cautioned 'do not try to optimize society in anger', meaning that it's generally considered dangerous to tell yourself that you're hurting somebody else for the public benefit - which I'm safer about, because, like, selfish, so I didn't get cautioned as much there."

"But the point is that Civilization doesn't tell you to flush the emotion of revenge out of yourself and never use it again because it's not Lawful.  It says to check the Law first, once you've been trained to be able to actually compute that validly, and use the feeling of vengeance to fuel moving through the structures of Law when those structures are close enough to the emotion.  After you've checked that it's not going to wreck society if everyone starts acting like that, and that you're not turning into a rogue utility-function inverter that other people have an incentive to exile or cryosuspend before you hurt them next, etcetera."

"If somebody stole my jacket - and ate it, so I couldn't get it back - and was very unlikely to steal again from me personally, you might think at first that the Law would say that it's not in my own interest to spend effort hunting them down, if I didn't feel an impulse to vengeance."

"But imagine that there's ten people from whom a thief is going to steal 5 gold pieces each, in a random order.  The thief never hits the same target twice, ever.  It costs 10gp to catch the thief."

"By ill-luck, I'm the first person randomly selected as a target.  As it happens, I don't particularly care about the other people on the list.  Why, I don't even have any idea who they are!  So how is it worth my while to spend 10gp on catching somebody who only cost me 5gp originally and isn't going to touch me again in the future?"

"But if you think about it from the perspective of the ten people on the list, not knowing yet which one of them will be the first target hit by the thief, they'd rather a policy that whichever one of them gets hit first, spends 10 gold to track the thief down.  If they don't have that policy, they each lose 5gp with certainty.  If they do have that policy, they each lose 15gp with 10% probability, 0gp with 90% probability."

"Now, I could carefully reason all that out Lawfully, from scratch, after the thief targets me, and motivate myself only by the thought of how I would've wanted the collective policy to be that whoever had the bad luck to end up in my position, would spend 10gp to hunt down the thief that already cost them 5gp."

"Or I could draw on my emotion about revenge, and hunt down the bastard who stole my jacket, even if that cost me a lot more additional money on top of what was stolen from me.  After checking very carefully to make sure that was also what the Law said to do, and not a case of me trying to get away with inverting somebody else's utility function in an attempt to motivate people like that through the threat of 'punishment' - because that, they'd just ignore, or maybe have an incentive to kill me in my sleep before I could go around inverting their utility function.  Kids with stronger Good tendencies than mine are cautioned 'do not optimize society in anger', meaning that it's generally considered dangerous to tell yourself that you're hurting somebody else for the public benefit - which I'm safer about, because, like, selfish, so I didn't get cautioned as much there."

"But the point is that Civilization doesn't tell you to flush the emotion of revenge out of yourself and never use it again because it's anti-Lawful.  It says to check the Law first, once you've been trained to be able to actually compute that validly, and use the feeling of vengeance to fuel moving through the structures of Law when those structures are close enough to the emotion.  After you've checked that it's not going to wreck society if everyone starts acting like that, and that you're not turning into a rogue utility-function inverter that other people have an incentive to exile or cryosuspend before you hurt them next, etcetera."

"If somebody stole my jacket - and ate it, so I couldn't get it back - and was very unlikely to steal again from me personally, you might think at first that the Law would say that it's not in my own interest to spend effort hunting them down, if I didn't feel an impulse to vengeance."

"But imagine that there's ten people from whom a thief is going to steal 5 gold pieces each, in a random order.  The thief never hits the same target twice, ever.  It costs 10gp to catch the thief."

"By ill-luck, I'm the first person randomly selected as a target.  As it happens, I don't particularly care about the other people on the list.  Why, I don't even have any idea who they are!  So how is it worth my while to spend 10gp on catching somebody who only cost me 5gp originally and isn't going to touch me again in the future?"

"But if you think about it from the perspective of the ten people on the list, not knowing yet which one of them will be the first target hit by the thief, they'd rather a policy that whichever one of them gets hit first, spends 10 gold to track the thief down.  If they don't have that policy, they each lose 5gp with certainty.  If they do have that policy, they each lose 15gp with 10% probability, 0gp with 90% probability."

"Now, I could carefully reason all that out Lawfully, from scratch, after the thief targets me, and motivate myself only by the thought of how I would've wanted the collective policy to be that whoever had the bad luck to end up in my position, would spend 10gp to hunt down the thief that already cost them 5gp."

"Or I could draw on my emotion about revenge, and hunt down the shitface who stole my jacket, even if that cost me a lot more additional money on top of what was stolen from me.  After checking very carefully to make sure that was also what the Law said to do, and not a case of me trying to get away with inverting somebody else's utility function in an attempt to motivate people like that through the threat of 'punishment' - because that, they'd just ignore, or maybe have an incentive to kill me in my sleep before I could go around inverting their utility function.  Kids with stronger Good tendencies than mine are cautioned 'do not optimize society in anger', meaning that it's generally considered dangerous to tell yourself that you're hurting somebody else for the public benefit - which I'm safer about, because, like, selfish, so I didn't get cautioned as much there."

"But the point is that Civilization doesn't tell you to flush the emotion of revenge out of yourself and never use it again because it's anti-Lawful.  It says to check the Law first, once you've been trained to be able to actually compute that validly, and use the feeling of vengeance to fuel moving through the structures of Law when those structures are close enough to the emotion.  After you've checked that it's not going to wreck society if everyone starts acting like that, and that you're not turning into a rogue utility-function inverter that other people have an incentive to exile or cryosuspend before you hurt them next, etcetera."

"If somebody stole my jacket - and ate it, so I couldn't get it back - and was very unlikely to steal again from me personally, you might think at first that the Law would say that it's not in my own interest to spend effort hunting them down, if I didn't feel an impulse to vengeance."

"But imagine that there's ten people from whom a thief is going to steal 5 gold pieces each, in a random order.  The thief never hits the same target twice, ever.  It costs 10gp to catch the thief."

"By ill-luck, I'm the first person randomly selected as a target.  As it happens, I don't particularly care about the other people on the list.  Why, I don't even have any idea who they are!  So how is it worth my while to spend 10gp on catching somebody who only cost me 5gp originally and isn't going to touch me again in the future?"

"But if you think about it from the perspective of the ten people on the list, not knowing yet which one of them will be the first target hit by the thief, they'd rather a policy that whichever one of them gets hit first, spends 10 gold to track the thief down.  If they don't have that policy, they each lose 5gp with certainty.  If they do have that policy, they each lose 15gp with 10% probability, 0gp with 90% probability."

"Now, I could carefully reason all that out Lawfully, from scratch, after the thief targets me, and motivate myself only by the thought of how I would've wanted the collective policy to be that whoever had the bad luck to end up in my position, would spend 10gp to hunt down the thief that already cost them 5gp."

"Or I could draw on my emotion about revenge, and hunt down the criminal who stole my jacket, even if that cost me a lot more additional money on top of what was stolen from me.  After checking very carefully to make sure that was also what the Law said to do, and not a case of me trying to get away with inverting somebody else's utility function in an attempt to motivate people like that through the threat of 'punishment' - because that, they'd just ignore, or maybe have an incentive to kill me in my sleep before I could go around inverting their utility function.  Kids with stronger Good tendencies than mine are cautioned 'do not optimize society in anger', meaning that it's generally considered dangerous to tell yourself that you're hurting somebody else for the public benefit - which I'm safer about, because, like, selfish, so I didn't get cautioned as much there."

"But the point is that Civilization doesn't tell you to flush the emotion of revenge out of yourself and never use it again because it's anti-Lawful.  It says to check the Law first, once you've been trained to be able to actually compute that validly, and use the feeling of vengeance to fuel moving through the structures of Law when those structures are close enough to the emotion.  After you've checked that it's not going to wreck society if everyone starts acting like that, and that you're not turning into a rogue utility-function inverter that other people have an incentive to exile or cryosuspend before you hurt them next, etcetera."