= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
siduri comments on An Abortion Dialogue - 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 (90)
Fair enough. I already alluded to it and wanted to present my own novel slippery slope argument using parthenogenesis, but I guess it was a loose end.
I've added a little ordinary enough description of infanticide and acceptance. (Only really interesting thing is the Malthusian material.) The new material is at the bottom roughly where you'd expect it.
Yep. The new material is internally consistent, but of course you're going to lose the people--and I'm pretty sure this would be a majority of all people--who have a strong moral intuition against infanticide.
One of my unstated goals is to show that both speakers are wrong about personal identity; the pro-lifer is incoherent or absurd, and the other is consistent but as you point out infanticide clashes with naive intuitions. The second is 'less wrong', but that's still not 'all right'.
Or perhaps you've illustrated that naive intuitions about infanticide are wrong.
Perhaps our naive intuitions about the babyeaters are also wrong.
Well, at least some of my naive intuitions about babyeaters I'm fairly certain are wrong. Eating babies seems much much much worse than simply killing them, for example.