= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TimS comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (2012) - 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 (1430)
Sigh. How did the post-modern moral nihilist become the defender of moral universalism? My argument is more that infanticide fits extremely poorly within the cluster of values that we've currently adopted.
I am highly skeptical that this is true.
An uncle of mine who is a doctor said that SIDS is a codeword for infanticide and that many of his colleagues admit as much.
Either my model is false or this story is wrong.
Specifically, I can't understand why a coroner would not take actions to facilitate the prosecution of a crime (infanticide is murder), because that is one of the jobs of a coroner.
By contrast, I've heard that coroners are quite wiling to label a death as accidental when they believe it was suicide, because any legal violations are not punishable (suicide is generally illegal, but everyone agrees that prosecution is pointless).
Because he, like some who have posted here, is sympathetic to the baby-killing mothers under certain circumstances and doesn't mind helping them avoid prosecution? I wouldn't judge him, heavens forbid. I'd likely do the opposite in his place, but I respect his position.
How much overlap do you think there is between "influential members of the criminal justice system" and "people who are sympathetic to infanticide"? Especially considering how far from mainstream the infanticide position is.
Labelling a suicide as an accident isn't legally trivial. It is, at least in some cases, an action that favors the interests of the heirs of suicides and disfavors the interests of life insurance companies.
I agree that it isn't legally trivial. But the social consequences of labeling a death as suicide are much more immediate than any financial consequences from labeling a death as accidental. Also, I'm not sure what percentage of the suicidal have life insurance, so I'm not sure how much weight the hypothetical coroner would place on the life insurance issue.
I'm not saying the position is rational or morally correct, but it wouldn't surprise me that an influential person like a coroner held a position vaguely like "screw insurance companies." (>>75%)
By contrast, I would be extremely surprised to learn that a coroner was willing to ignore an infanticide, absent collusion (i.e. bribery) of some kind (<<<1%)
(I don't believe CharlieSheen's anecdote either. I was challenging the suicide point in isolation.)
Say what now? Possibly it's because my background is Jewish, not Christian, but I don't buy that at all.
Normatively, suicide is shameful in modern society. By contrast, I don't think most suicide-victim families (or their social network) are thinking about the life insurance proceeds at the time (within a week?) that the coroner is determining cause of death.
I know I've heard of a survey of coroner in which some substantial percentage (20-50%, sorry don't remember better) of coroners reported that the following had ever occurred in their career: they believed the cause of death of the body they were examining was suicide, but listed the cause as accident.
I can't find that survey in a quick search, but this research result talks about the effect of elected coroners on cause of death determinations. Specifically, elected coroners were slightly less likely to declare suicide as the cause of death.
If it works that way with euthanasia...
Not really. Particularly not if we're OK with abortion. In fact, that infanticide is currently illegal seems more like a historical accident than anything: our current standard seems to be "don't kill people", and human babies are by far the most exceptional element of the set of things we'd consider people.
Well, certainly not that's been recorded, and I don't think most cultures could really be said to have had a thinker who spoke for the entire culture*. Most people did or did not go along with infanticide purely as a product of what other people were doing.
* And in fact if you discount Jewish and Christian (ETA: and Islamic) thinkers in general and Western thinkers after 1400 or so, I'm having trouble finding a single respected thinker who was explicitly opposed: certainly Plato and Aristotle seemed to support it.
It looks like I misread you. I thought you were referring to moral conventions generally, while you seem to have been referring to moral conventions on infanticide. I agree that many historical cultures did not oppose infanticide as strongly as the current culture.
Major objection. When talking about society at large and not the small cluster of "rationalist" utilitarians (who are ever tempted to be smarter than their ethics), the current standard is "don't kill what our instincts register as people". The distinction being that John Q. Public hardly reflects on the matter at all. I believe that it's a hugely useful standard because it strengthens the relevant ethical injunctions, regardless of any inconveniences that it brings from an act utilitarian standpoint.
The fact that infanticide has been practiced so widely suggests strongly that most people don't "instinctively" see babies as people. It is at best a weak instinct supported by a strong social convention in most Western societies.
But yes, point taken. Even so, TimS was talking about "the cluster of values we've currently adopted", which, as you say, most people never think about at all. So my post should be taken to refer to people who have given any thought whatsoever to the question of why they're OK with killing pigs but not killing adult humans. I'd wager their conclusion is almost universally "because pigs aren't people".
NO! As you have yourself correctly pointed out, it is because most cultures, with ours being a notable exception, assign a low value to "useless" people or people who they feel are a needless drain on society. (mistake fixed)
Hm. So what seems to follow from this is that most people don't actually consider killing people to be a particularly big deal, what they're averse to is killing people who contribute something useful to society... or, more generally, that most people are primarily motivated by maximizing social value.
Yes? (I don't mean to be pedantic here, I just want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth.)
Blast me! I meant to say that our culture is an exception, not an "inclusion". So this statement is largely true about non-western cultures, but western ones mostly view the relatively recent concept of "individuality and personhood are sacred" as their main reason against murder.
Ah, gotcha. That makes sense.
So is your position that we inherited an aversion to murder from earlier non-western cultures, and then when we sanctified personhood we made that our main reason for our pre-existing aversion?
Or that earlier cultures weren't averse to murder, and our sanctification caused us to develop such an aversion?
Or something else?
Both, probably. We inherited all of their aversion (being a modest amount), and then we developed the sacredness, which, all on its own, added several times more aversion on top of that.