Bongo comments on Unspeakable Morality - Less Wrong

27 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 04 August 2009 05:57AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (116)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Bongo 04 August 2009 04:50:47PM 0 points [-]

Does anybody think pain and/or death are unconditionally bad

You don't?

When is pain or death not bad?

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 05 August 2009 01:13:43PM 2 points [-]

Masochism.

Comment author: anonym 05 August 2009 05:35:19AM 1 point [-]

Pain: when it wakes you up to alert you that you are in mortal danger.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 05 August 2009 01:13:24PM 0 points [-]

At the risk of getting into semantics: in that case, pain serves a useful purpose, but that doesn't make pain itself non-bad. Creating an alternative ("upgraded") alert system that served the wake-up function but wasn't painful would be better. If pain in that context wouldn't be bad, then "does the alert system cause pain" would be an irrelevant question and the upgraded alert system wouldn't be considered any better.

Comment author: anonym 06 August 2009 03:59:12AM 0 points [-]

in that case, pain serves a useful purpose

Right, which was exactly my point: not every instance of pain should be classified as bad, and so it doesn't make sense to say the general phenomenon is "unconditionally bad, in all cases, with no exceptions", which is exactly what Bongo implicitly asserted.

Comment author: RobinZ 04 August 2009 05:20:19PM 0 points [-]

To be perfectly fair, the absolute is difficult to assert due to the fuzziness of the concept. I mean, is tearing a piece of paper in half bad, because you killed the paper? What about tearing a virus in half? What about a bacterium? Where does the transition come in from merely irreversible to murderous.