fburnaby comments on Offense versus harm minimization - Less Wrong

60 Post author: Yvain 16 April 2011 01:06AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (417)
Tags: utilitarianism

Comments (417)

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

Comment author: fburnaby 16 April 2011 01:51:34PM *  17 points [-]

Beautifully put. So according to your objection, if I want to increase net utility, I have two considerations to make:

  • reducing the offense I cause directly increases net utility (Yvain)
  • reducing the offense I cause creates a world with stronger incentives for offense-taking, which is likely to substantially decrease net utility in the long-term (Vladmir_M)

This seems like a very hard calculation. My intuition is that item 2 is more important since it's a higher level of action, and I'm that kind of guy. But how do I rationally make this computation without my own biases coming in? My own opinions on "draw Mohammed day" have always been quite fuzzy and flip-floppy, for example.

Comment author: Torben 19 April 2011 12:57:47PM 3 points [-]

But how do I rationally make this computation without my own biases coming in?

One way is to try and compare similar countries where such offensiveness bans are enforced or not, and see which direction net migration is.

This may be difficult since countries without such bans will in all likely become more prosperous than those with them.

Another alternative might be comparing the same country before and after such laws, e.g. Pakistan.

Comment author: fburnaby 20 April 2011 12:54:17PM 2 points [-]

"Look at the world". Always a good answer!

I have a bad head for history. Do you know of anyone who has done this for me, ala Jared Diamond, for the case of free speech? It seems like it may still be hard to find someone who is plausibly unbiased on such a topic.

Comment author: DanArmak 23 April 2011 02:11:01PM 1 point [-]

One way is to try and compare similar countries where such offensiveness bans are enforced or not, and see which direction net migration is.

There are many other factors affecting migration. Is it possible to evaluate a single factor's direct influence?

Comment author: Torben 24 April 2011 10:32:13AM 0 points [-]

I don't know.

Perhaps "freedom of speech" (or whatever variable to call it) is so tightly bundled with other variables -- most of all affluence -- that it's impossible to asses properly.

OTOH, if this bundling is evident across nations, cultures and time, it probably means that it truly is an important part of a net desirable society?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit