= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Disability Culture Meets the Transhumanist Condition - 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 (150)
You seem to be confusing ethics and law. The law needs to be a Schelling point, and "you don't have to help but aren't allowed to hurt", is probably as good a Schelling point as your going to find.
Not quite, though I should have spoken generally about rulesets, instead of laws. Whether it's a personal ruleset, or a legal ruleset, it needs be logically consistent.
That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, since the parents in questions wouldn't be forced to help, they just wouldn't be allowed to hurt by preventing others from helping.
A parent may not injure a child or, through inaction, allow a child to come to harm...?
Just foists the whole problem off on whoever has to define "harm." That's what a lot of modern law ultimately comes down to, of course, but I don't think that's a desirable endpoint.
Yes, this is why we can't build a FAI just by implementing the Three Laws.