= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanArmak comments on How to get that Friendly Singularity: a minority view - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (69)
Not at all. The morality of imposing my values on you depends entirely on what you were doing, or were going to do, before I forced you to behave nicely.
You may have misread that, and answered a different question, something like "Is it moral?". The quote actually is asking "Do non-LessWrong-reading humans generally consider it moral?".
I answered the right quote.
Random examples: was the U.S. acting morally when it entered WW2 against the Nazis, and imposed their values across Western Europe and in Japan? Is the average government acting morally when it forcefully collects taxes, enforcing its wealth-redistribution values? Or when it enforces most kinds of laws?
I think most people by far (to answer your question about non-LW-readers) support some value-imposing policies. Very few people are really pure personal-liberty non-interventionists. The morality of the act depends on the behavior being imposed, and on the default behavior that exists without such imposition.
It remains to stipulate that the government has a single person at its head who imposes his or her values on everyone else. Some governments do run this way, some others approximate it.
Edit: What you may have meant to say, is that the average non-LW-reading person, when hearing the phrase "one human imposing their values on everyone else", will imagine some very evil and undesirable values, and conclude that the action is immoral. I agree with that - it's all a matter of framing.