= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek comments on Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease - 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 (343)
Which bit of " pretty much the .same as fairness" were you having trouble with?
Do you think "all robbers should be jailed except TheAncientGeek" is a fair rule?
What rule would count as non universal for you?
The "fairness" part. Falling back on another insufficiently specified intuitive concept doesn't help explain this one. Is it fair to jail a man who steals a loaf of bread from a rich man so his nephew won't starve? A simple yes or no isn't enough here, we don't all have identical intuitive senses of fairness, so what we need isn't the output for any particular question, but the process that generates the outputs.
I don't think "all robbers should be jailed except TheAncientGeek" is a fair rule, but that doesn't advance the discussion from where we were already.
Where a universal rule would be one that anyone could check any time for relevant output (both "never steal" and "if nsheppard, steal, if else, do nothing) would be examples, one which only produces output for a specific individual or in a specific instance (for example "nsheppard can steal," or "on January 3rd, 2014, it is okay to steal.") These would be specific case rules.
It is not an intuitiojn about what is true, it is a concept that helps to explain another concept.,If you let it.
Then why do you think you can build explicit exceptions into rules and still deem them universal? I think you can't because I think, roughly speaking, universal=fair.
Such a rule is useless for moral guidance. But intelligent people think the CI is useful for moral guidance. That should have told you that your guess about what "universal" means, in this context, is wrong. You should have discarded that interpretation and sought one that does not make the CI obviously foolish.
"Intelligent people" also think you shouldn't switch in the common version of the Monty Hall problem. The whole point of this argument is to point out that the CI doesn't make sense as given and therefore, that "intelligent people" are wrong about it.
No, it tells me that people who think the CI is useful have not thought through the implications. It's easy to say that rules like the ones given above can't be made "universal", but the same people who wouldn't think such rules can be made universal are willing to make other rules of similar form universal (why is a rule that says that only Jiro can rob not "universal", but one which says that only non-minors can drink alcohol is?)
None of the comments have not anywhere near the .CI as given. Kant did not define the .CI as an accessible function.
I have already answered your second point.