= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Emile comments on Offense versus harm minimization - 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 (417)
Imagine a world where there are a billion Muslims who are exactly as offended by pictures of Mohammed as the average American student would be by a racist caricature of Martin Luther King. Does one "disease of the mind" need to be cured more than the other? In both cases, the "patient" wouldn't take a pill that cured him.
Now add to the picture one Muslim fanatic who is angry enough at depictions of Mohammed that he'd be ready to kill in retaliation. Is it worth hurting the other billion muslims to try to "cure" him (assumting the cure works, which is another question)? How many fanatics do you need before it makes utilitarian sense to use the cure?
And a lazy person probably couldn't be bothered to go out and get the drug that cures laziness, either. Hence the social presssure method.
Would they? I would, if it was cheap and available enough.
There's an important difference between things people would change if they could do it at zero cost (lazyness, disease, shyness, obesity, possibly a psychopath's pathology), and the things people wouldn't change even if they could at zero cost (being offended by racism, being offended by pictures of Mohammed, caring about other people). That's why I don't find that disease is a very good analogy.
Some features of diseases are applicable to this situation - most aren't, but if any of the features it does have recommend a treatment like social pressure, then 'disease' is a good enough analogy.
(For the record, I don't think disease is a good analogy. The closest this situation comes to being a disease is that we don't want them to have it; they want to keep it.)