= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
rocurley comments on [POLL] LessWrong group on YourMorals.org - 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 (82)
Lbh'er abg nyybjrq gb znxr hc sbe lbhe npgvbaf; V nffhzrq gung nyfb zrnag vaqverpgyl ivn qbangvat gb fbzr punevgl.
It you interpret that restriction broadly enough there's no reason to accept any of the offers, since many (most?) things that you can do with money have some positive effect.
I had similar problems with the whole setup. Given A) you have no repercussions for your actions and B) the money can't make up for the action, the setup seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with the real world. Example:
How much would it take for me to listen to loud music for 24 hours? Realistically, it would throw off my sleep schedule, so I'd need to take enough money to offset the impact on my work performance, and make up for the extra day off. But I'm supposed to think that the choice wouldn't impact my sleep schedule or work performance, and furthermore I can't use the money to make up for any time lost. So I'm left without any standard for comparison.
I think by "no bad consequences" it just meant you won't get in trouble. You still have to put up with any physical or psychological damage.
I assumed they meant you can't spend it on anything but yourself.