TimS comments on A response to "Torture vs. Dustspeck": The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas - Less Wrong

-4 Post author: Logos01 30 November 2011 03:34AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (100)
Tags: philosophy morality

Comments (100)

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

Comment author: TimS 30 November 2011 01:36:23PM *  -1 points [-]

I so far haven't seen evidence that you are, either.

As you said, ideas have momentum. I'm not sure if it's an expression of human cognitive bias or human moral plasticity. But it is the case that talking about whether to torture a person makes torturing someone more likely. Because evil is especially intractable when it is banal.

But those are reasons not to have the conversation. At all. If that's what you believe, you shouldn't have resurrected the topic because it involves a secret man is "not ready to know."

None of this is a reason to decide that suffering does not add linearly. And that's the only interesting question in the hypo. Because everyone already agrees that choosing either would be immoral if there were no forced choice. And everything you say about choosing to torture is just as true about choosing to dust-speck, except that it is totally impossible for us to dust-speck, given our current capacities.

In short, you seem to want to avoid the question of linear-suffering entirely. That's why the criticism of "getting out of the issue" could have any bite at all.

Comment author: Logos01 30 November 2011 03:52:03PM *  -2 points [-]

But it is the case that talking about whether to torture a person makes torturing someone more likely.

Citation, please? I have seen evidence that this is true of actual instances of torture. I have also seen evidence that this is true of cases where a person has written "I will torture". I have never seen evidence to support the idea that discussing the notion of torture causes rise in the rates of torture-incidences. (I am giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming you do not mean this in the 'magical thinking' sense.)

None of this is a reason to decide that suffering does not add linearly. And that's the only interesting question in the hypo.

None of that is relevant to the question of linear vs. logarithmic quantification of suffering, yet they are all questions raised by the hypothesis -- a direct falsification of your claim of that contrast being the "only interesting question" in the hypothesis.

. And everything you say about choosing to torture is just as true about choosing to dust-speck,

How do you figure? I am unable to conceive of a way for this statement to be valid. Enlighten me.

In short, you seem to want to avoid the question of linear-suffering entirely.

What? I seem to want nothing of the sort. I even allowed for the stipulation of linear-additive suffering as a means of demonstrating that it was uninteresting to the topic at hand; the argument by myself that the refusal to acknowledge the non-immediate consequences of either option was grounds for invalidating the answers thus far given.

That's why the criticism of "getting out of the issue" could have any bite at all.

Please stop using that phrase. It's putting words into my mouth and they just are NOT applicable to me or my argument whatsoever. It is patently dishonest of you to keep doing that.

Just stop.

Comment author: TimS 30 November 2011 04:08:20PM *  -1 points [-]

Cites

Any solution to the question which ignores these elements . . . are of no value in making practical decisions -- they cannot be, as 'consequence' extends beyond the mere instantiation of a given choice -- the exact pain inflicted by either scenario -- into the kind of society that such a choice would result in.

As a general trend if we accept one form of action as opposed to the other we are reducing the threshold towards its being repeated. This is akin to the Broken Window Theory: what was permitted once may be argued more permissible in the future due to said permission.

See, e.g., the conventional wisdom that the show 24 made implementation of torture more politically feasible.

Look, people keep telling you that you are trying to fight the hypo. You admit the essential elements of this charge. That's fine with me. Some hypothetical questions are not worth engaging.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit