thomblake comments on A Normative Rule for Decision-Changing Metrics - Less Wrong

1 Post author: FrankAdamek 05 August 2009 05:07AM

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

Comments (17)

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

Comment author: Alicorn 05 August 2009 07:37:47PM *  2 points [-]

We already know the concept of "person" is bankrupt unless you allow degrees of personhood (unless you are content with an ethics that has no problem with torturing dogs, but forbids saving 2 people using the organs from one brain-dead death-row convict with a terminal disease that gives his vegetative torso one month to live).

My ethics has the concept of personhood in it and doesn't allow degrees of personhood... but I don't think the brain-dead death-row convict with the terminal disease is a person. (Because they're brain-dead, not because they're on death row or because they're terminal.) Are you making the error that all humans must be persons for all definitions of "person"?

(I also have a problem with torturing dogs. My entire ethics isn't about persons.)

Comment author: thomblake 05 August 2009 07:46:11PM 0 points [-]

(I also have a problem with torturing dogs. My entire ethics isn't about persons.)

Sure it is. You don't have a (ethical) problem with dogs torturing dogs, do you?

Comment author: Alicorn 05 August 2009 07:50:05PM 0 points [-]

I don't think dogs typically do anything I'd label torture, mostly because it'd have to be more systematic than just fighting. But no, I don't think any ethically wrong act is performed if one dog hurts another dog. I'd probably still try to break them up.