Perplexed comments on An Abortion Dialogue - Less Wrong

10 Post author: gwern 12 February 2011 01:20AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (90)
Tags: philosophy identity

Comments (90)

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

Comment author: Perplexed 12 February 2011 06:30:01PM 5 points [-]

What if I were to ask the same question about why society should be valued?

Then you would probably be asking a good question.

As a Humean, who bases his moral philosophy on rational self-interest, I would answer that 'society' is simply a shorthand for all of the other rational agents who might react positively or negatively to my actions. As such, society is not something that should be 'valued' as such, but it is something that a prudent self-interested person will want to take into account.

But I'm sure that people (I'm sure there are some) who actually value society without valuing individual persons - those people would find your question difficult to answer.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 12 February 2011 11:37:42PM *  4 points [-]

As a Humean, who bases his moral philosophy on rational self-interest,

Two points.

1:

Why is this any less arbitrary?

2:

So if I handed you a baby and offered you $10 to kill it, assuming no one else would ever find out, would you do it?

If the answer is some variation on "no, because I would feel bad about it", I can throw in a pill that keeps you from feeling bad about it.

Comment author: ShardPhoenix 14 February 2011 03:57:11AM 0 points [-]

The scenario in 2 is too implausable to be useful, in my opinion.

Comment author: wedrifid 13 February 2011 02:21:51AM 0 points [-]

w! Definitely a w.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 13 February 2011 05:59:03PM 2 points [-]

I don't understand the reference to w. What does that letter have to do with the context?

Comment author: wedrifid 13 February 2011 06:04:20PM 0 points [-]

The homophone is broken.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 13 February 2011 08:53:34PM 1 point [-]

Oh! Throw in a pill, not through in. I got it.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 13 February 2011 09:00:07PM 2 points [-]

Thanks, Fixed.

Comment author: torekp 24 February 2011 01:26:33AM *  2 points [-]

Hume wouldn't be a Humean if rational self-interest were the standard. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy writes:

These moral sentiments are emotions [...] caused by contemplating the person or action to be evaluated without regard to our self-interest, and from a common or general perspective [...]

Regarding Eugene's point about terminal value, I agree with the following clarification: the primary reason murder is wrong is because it deprives somebody of the rest of their life.

This still allows us to distinguish between murder and failure to create new lives, provided that we see a difference between someone who already exists and someone who merely might exist.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit