nshepperd comments on Luminosity (Twilight fanfic) Part 2 Discussion Thread - Less Wrong

6 Post author: JenniferRM 25 October 2010 11:07PM

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

Comments (420)

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

Comment author: nshepperd 18 November 2010 09:43:42AM 1 point [-]

My values, transposed into the position of a vampire in Luminosiverse, yes. I would be a predator, choosing among prey of two species that are not my own.

Wait, why should your values change just because you're suddenly immortal? Or is it because of the magical value of wolves in the luminosiverse? This doesn't make sense.

Comment author: Carinthium 18 November 2010 11:00:44AM 2 points [-]

Although I don't, my best guess is that he puts a value on biodiversity.

Comment author: wedrifid 19 November 2010 12:12:25AM *  2 points [-]

Although I don't, my best guess is that he puts a value on biodiversity.

You don't put any value on biodiversity? As in, if you had the choice of destroying all biodiversity in the world that isn't directly necessary to human survival for benefit to you of one cent you would take it? That is cold.

Comment author: wedrifid 19 November 2010 12:10:57AM *  0 points [-]

Wait, why should your values change just because you're suddenly immortal?

Immortality is not the only change.

Or is it because of the magical value of wolves in the luminosiverse?

That plays somewhat of a part.

This doesn't make sense.

Sense? What is this 'sense' and how does it relate to human values? :P

Comment author: nshepperd 19 November 2010 12:41:21AM *  3 points [-]

I didn't think any change would be enough. Isn't morality subjunctively objective? What doesn't make sense is that you look like you're saying wedrifid_vampire's values are good according to wedrifid_now's values. If I were expecting to be "turned" I would do everything I can to maintain my current values after the event, because to do otherwise would be against my current values.

And my current values say that if it's a human or an endangered wolf, I'd save the human.

Comment author: wedrifid 19 November 2010 12:53:56AM 1 point [-]

I didn't think any change would be enough. Isn't morality subjunctively objective?

That doesn't preclude self reference. (sp. subjectively)

And my current values say that if it's a human or an endangered wolf, I'd save the human.

Does this apply in the extreme case? That is, species vs individual?

If I had a single use switch that could be used to either save the wolf species or save an individual human I'd flick it to 'wolf species'. The only reason I would even consider the other option is because humans lose their grip on perspective when it comes to morality - it is sometimes necessary to signal to them.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 19 November 2010 03:51:13AM 0 points [-]

Unless you can provide an objective reason why your values should prefer eating the wolf, I will assume it's because you have a rule saying that you should treat members of your own species specially.

Once you become a vampire, the extensional interpretation of this rule changes. It now says that you should treat vampires specially.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 19 November 2010 05:25:59AM 1 point [-]

I will assume it's because you have a rule saying that you should treat members of your own species specially.

I place value on sapience/sentience/self-awareness whatever you want to call it.

Comment author: shokwave 18 November 2010 12:18:54PM 0 points [-]

I think his values change because he changed from being a human into being a vampire: by many measures of species, vampires are a separate species from humans.