= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Matt_Simpson comments on Some Thoughts Are Too Dangerous For Brains to Think - 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 (311)
But you still discriminate based on sex, gender, race, class, sexual orientation and religion every day. You don't try to talk about sports with every girl you meet, you safely assume that they probably aren't interested until you receive evidence to the contrary. But if you meet a guy, then talking about sports moves higher on the list of conversation topics just because he's a guy.
Well, I actually try to avoid talking about sports entirely, because I find the topic totally uninteresting.
But! That is mere nitpicking, and the thrust of your argument is correct. I can only say that like all human beings I regularly fail to adhere to my own moral standards, and that this does not make those standards worthless.
For some reason I expected that answer. ;)
I find it odd that you still hold on to "not statistically discriminating" as a value. What about it do you think is immoral? (I'm not trying to be condescending here, I'm genuinely curious)
I value not statistically discriminating (on the basis of unchosen characteristics or group memberships) because it is an incredibly unpleasant phenomenon to experience. As a white American man I suffer proportionally much less from the phenomenon than do most people, and even the small piece of it that I pick up from being bisexual sucks.
It's not a terminal value, necessarily, but in practice it tends to act like one.
If following your moral standards is impractical, maybe those standards aren't quite right in the first place.
It is a common mistake for idealists to choose their morality without reference to practical realities. A better search plan would be to find all the practical options, and then pick whichever of those is the most moral.
If you spare women you meet from discussion of sports (or insert whatever interest you have that exhibits average sex differences) until she expresses interest in the subject, you have not failed any reasonable moral standards.
Well, until you factor in the unfortunate tendency of women to be attracted to men who are indifferent to their interests :-P
Most moral by what standard? You're just passing the buck here.
Moral according to your standards. I'm just suggesting a different order of operation: understanding the practicalities first, and then trying to find which of the practical options you judge most moral.
But those standards are moral standards. If you're suggesting that one should just choose the most moral practical option, how is that any different from consequentialism?
Your first comment sounded like you were suggesting that people should choose the most moral practical standard.