eirenicon comments on The Sword of Good

51Eliezer_Yudkowsky03 September 2009 12:53AM

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

Comments (214)
    Tags: hero_morality_license suspension_of_moral_disbelief fiction

    Comments (214)

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

    eirenicon08 September 2009 07:24:12PM2 points [-]

    You missed the step where you assert that most people assert it is wrong to eat sentient animals, which is what would create the inconsistency, were most people to assert that.

    rwallace08 September 2009 11:11:13PM1 point [-]

    Okay, but if offered the opportunity to kill and eat a human, or an elf, or a Wookie, most people would recoil in moral revulsion, and if you asked them "is that because you think it's wrong to kill and eat sentient beings" would probably say yes, so I think most people do assert that.

    Eliezer_Yudkowsky09 September 2009 12:30:52AM2 points [-]

    Actually, "Would you eat a Wookie?" is probably a helpful distinguishing question here. For me the answer is obviously "No!" and occurs with the same fleeting nausea as "Would you eat a human being?" But I grew up reading SF books like Little Fuzzy that teach personhood theory in a very visceral way. Other readers claimed they weren't bothered by the Babyeaters because the children eaten weren't human!

    thomblake09 September 2009 02:02:52PM5 points [-]

    because the children eaten weren't human!

    Indeed, one thing that surprises ethicists their first time teaching is that in ordinary English, 'person' and 'human' mean the same thing - so most intro students, when asked 'is Yoda a person' will answer 'no', even though they'd answer 'yes' to 'is Luke Skywalker a person'.

    Eliezer_Yudkowsky09 September 2009 06:06:54PM* 3 points [-]

    Maybe you need to ask, "Would you eat Yoda if his species were tasty?"

    Alicorn09 September 2009 02:34:07PM0 points [-]

    I'm TAing discussion sections for the first time today, and based on some of the nonsense the students spouted in lecture yesterday, I'm going to need to cover what those words mean.

    Alicorn09 September 2009 08:37:03PM4 points [-]

    Update: I had one person say she would be fine with barbecuing Yoda because he wasn't human. I used this to segue into my explanation of what it means to bite the bullet.

    Eliezer_Yudkowsky09 September 2009 08:41:08PM3 points [-]

    I begin to wonder if your students are people.

    eirenicon09 September 2009 12:09:36AM* 2 points [-]

    I imagine that would be because most people don't understand that sentient beings includes chickens, lobsters[1], and unborn fetuses (not that many people would agree with eating fetuses). If you asked "is that because you think it's wrong to kill and eat beings that are capable of perceiving stimuli" most would probably disagree with you. Now, if you asked "is that because you think it's wrong to kill and eat beings that are capable of doing algebra," you'd probably get a different response.

    The reason people wouldn't eat an elf isn't because it's a sentient being, it's because it's a human equivalent sentient being. So you need to reach beyond sentience to find your inconsistency.

    And of course, the reason people wouldn't eat a Wookie is because it probably would taste like an old boot.

    [1]Research in recent years suggests that crustaceans may be capable of feeling pain and stress.

    betterthanwell10 September 2009 03:53:08PM* 1 point [-]

    Research in recent years suggests that crustaceans may be capable of feeling pain and stress.

    Pain and stress in crustaceans? Source: Applied Animal Behaviour Science.

    We consider evidence that crustaceans might experience pain and stress in ways that are analogous to those of vertebrates. Various criteria are applied that might indicate a potential for pain experience: (1) a suitable central nervous system and receptors, (2) avoidance learning, (3) protective motor reactions that might include reduced use of the affected area, limping, rubbing, holding or autotomy, (4) physiological changes, (5) trade-offs between stimulus avoidance and other motivational requirements, (6) opioid receptors and evidence of reduced pain experience if treated with local anaesthetics or analgesics, and (7) high cognitive ability and sentience. For stress, we examine hormonal responses that have similar function to glucocorticoids in vertebrates. We conclude that there is considerable similarity of function, although different systems are used, and thus there might be a similar experience in terms of suffering. The treatment of these animals in the food industry and elsewhere might thus pose welfare problems.

    No more prawn cocktails or shrimp sandwiches for me.

    thomblake10 September 2009 05:53:01PM0 points [-]

    Is there really a place where both 'prawn' and 'shrimp' are used? What's the difference?

    Johnicholas08 September 2009 11:28:06PM1 point [-]

    I think Joshua Greene, among others, has investigated these sort of things (moral intuitions, and the justifications people typically give, which may be a sort of confabulation).

    http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/

    About Less Wrong
    Report Issues