= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Will_Newsome comments on Rational Terrorism or Why shouldn't we burn down tobacco fields? - 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 (47)
Uhm, it's seriously egregious and needlessly harmful to suggest that SIAI supporters should maybe be engaging in terrorism. Seriously. I agree with Yvain. The example is poor and meant to be inflammatory, not to facilitate reasonable debate about what you think utilitarianism means.
Would you please rewrite it with a different example so this doesn't just dissolve into a meaningless debate about x-risk x-rationality where half of your audience is already offended at what they believe to be a bad example and a flawed understanding of utilitarianism?
A lot of the comments on this post were really confusing until I got to this one.
I should make it explicit that the original post didn't advocate terrorism in any way but was a hypothetical reductio ad absurdum against utilitarianism that was obviously meant for philosophical consideration only.
It was nothing as simple as a philosophical argument against anything.
It is a line of reasoning working from premises that seem to be widely held, that I am unsure of how to integrate into my world view in a way that I (or most people?) would be comfortable with.
You missed the point. He said it was bad to talk about, not that he agreed or disagreed with any particular statement.
Done. The numbers don't really make sense in this version though....
Thanks. The slightly less sensible numbers might deaden the point of your argument a little bit, but I think the quality of discussion will be higher.
Somehow I doubt there will be much discussion, high quality or low :) It seems like it has gone below the threshold to be seen in the discussion section. It is -3 in case you are wondering.