dclayh comments on Closet survey #1 - Less Wrong

53 [deleted] 14 March 2009 07:51AM

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

Article Navigation

Sort By: Best

Show:

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

Comment author: steven0461 25 March 2009 08:19:16PM * 14 points [-]

This suggests the following argument: if it's wrong to cut off a baby's limb, surely (the possibility of negative quality of life aside) it's wrong to give the baby a permanent affliction that prevents it from ever thinking, having fun, etc? That's exactly the kind of affliction that death is.

I think many philosophical questions would be clearer, or at least more interesting, if we reconceptualized death as "Persistent Mineral Syndrome".

Comment author: dclayh 25 March 2009 10:11:09PM 10 points [-]

No, because the baby (by assumption) has no moral weight. The entity with moral weight is the adult which that baby will become. Preventing that adult from existing at all is not immoral (if it were, we'd essentially have to accept the repugnant conclusion), whereas causing harm to that adult, by harming the baby nonfatally, is.

Comment author: steven0461 26 March 2009 05:00:46PM 2 points [-]

Well, on this view the baby does grow into an adult, it's just that the adult is a death patient (and, apparently, discriminated against for this reason).

Too pseudo-clever?

Comment author: Strange7 comment score below threshold [+] (9 children)

Comment author: JGWeissman 14 April 2010 04:58:19PM 5 points [-]

You don't know it is discrimination until an actual member of the supposedly-disadvantaged group complains (barring other forms of evidence). But that does not mean it isn't disrimination. The map is not the territory.

Comment author: wedrifid 14 April 2010 02:08:13PM * 4 points [-]

... Which is why whenever I want to bully disadvantaged groups I make sure they cannot speak.

(That is to say, "Don't be daft!")

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 14 April 2010 02:17:01PM 2 points [-]

Thanks, Wedrifid. The other downvote is mine; there's so much wrong with the original statement that I was having trouble even figuring out where to start in replying to it.

Comment author: Strange7 14 April 2010 02:42:09PM 1 point [-]

That's censorship, not discrimination. Different problem needs a different solution. Once the information's made available, and complaints are possible, only then can antidiscrimination measures be implemented with any chance of success.

Have you ever known anyone to go out of their way to deny a dead person the opportunity to speak? If someone sat up near the conclusion of their own funeral and disputed the previous speaker's main points, I doubt they'd be shouted down.

Comment author: wedrifid 14 April 2010 04:25:31PM 4 points [-]

It ain't discrimination until an actual member of the supposedly-disadvantaged group complains.

That's censorship, not discrimination.

If I censor adequately then, by your definition, it is not possible for me to discriminate. I think that is a silly definition of 'discriminate'.

Comment author: Strange7 14 April 2010 04:43:48PM 0 points [-]

Possibly so. Silly, however, is not the same as wrong.

I am arguing that in such an environment of overwhelming censorship, it makes no sense to attempt to deal with the discrimination until the censorship itself has been cut away to the point that specific claims of descrimination - that is, complaints - are available. Censorship suppresses social problems in the same sense that morphine suppresses pain.

Arguing that some group should receive a material benefit which no member of that group has actually requested, and citing discrimination as the cause, is just some political game.

Comment author: wedrifid 14 April 2010 05:07:23PM 0 points [-]

Possibly so. Silly, however, is not the same as wrong.

Please consider 'wrong, stupid, absurd, unhelpful and generally BAD' to be substituted for the word 'silly' in the grandparent.

Comment author: AdeleneDawner 14 April 2010 03:05:45PM 2 points [-]

You gave an unqualified heuristic that applies to lots of situations, most of which it is inaccurate - and very dangerous - in. That's poor form at a bare minimum.

Comment author: Strange7 14 April 2010 04:16:54PM 0 points [-]

Not arguing with the downvotes, just trying to clarify what I meant.

dclayh comments on Closet survey #1 - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (653)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (653)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login