= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanArmak comments on Morality and relativistic vertigo - 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 (78)
These two are contradictory. If a child is taught not to commit violence, they won't be able to become teachers who commit violence against children.
Presumably "commit violence" means "inflict harm in a non-socially-sanctioned manner", while "physically punish" means "inflict harm in a socially-sanctioned manner".
Cynicism is fun! :)
No, there's a non-contradictory solution: Arrange for there to be no teachers in the following generation. ;-)
I'd rather arrange for there to be no further children to teach after the current generation.
No contradiction. Allowing a teacher to physically punish children =/= requiring a teacher to do same.
If the next generation of teachers all choose not to physically punish children, but have the option, both morals are conserved.