JoshuaZ comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 9 - Less Wrong

10 Post author: Oscar_Cunningham 09 September 2011 01:29PM

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

Comments (718)

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

Comment author: TobyBartels 03 October 2011 03:52:04AM 1 point [-]

Was there a point to that bit of the story? I'm not objecting to it, I just suspect that I may have missed something; it seemed kind of random.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 03 October 2011 04:07:19AM *  9 points [-]

The point as I understand it was to have the humans not have exactly our moral system. Morals evolve over time, and most people in any given generation would be shocked by the ethical and moral attitudes of people a few generations down the line. This attitude of the population reflects that. It also helps broaden the scope of the questions raised by not making one of the moral systems identical to our general moral system, so we don't immediately look at the morality of the humans and just say "but that's the right system!"

Overall, while I think I understand why Eliezer did this, it seems to be a very tiny benefit for a very large distraction. Overall, a net negative in getting his points across.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 04 October 2011 04:21:23AM 6 points [-]

It also has the potential to undermine the point of the story if a reader finds non-consensual sex as abhorrent as eating babies.

Comment author: pedanterrific 04 October 2011 04:34:07AM *  7 points [-]

Babyeaters vs Superhappies vs Libertarapists:

Whoever wins, we lose.

Comment author: Incorrect 08 October 2011 09:29:48PM 3 points [-]

What's wrong with the superhappies?

Comment author: pedanterrific 08 October 2011 11:41:20PM 2 points [-]

You know, I almost made a flippant remark about the abolition of "bodily pain, embarrassment, and romantic troubles" meaning an end to rape (oh no!) when I remembered untranslatable 4 which is arguably even better, so...

More seriously, I don't quite understand your question. There doesn't have to be something wrong with them for them to value different things than we do, such that a victory for them is a loss for us.

Comment author: TobyBartels 03 October 2011 08:27:18PM 1 point [-]

OK, thanks, I agree with you.