wedrifid comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (2012) - Less Wrong

25 Post author: orthonormal 26 December 2011 10:57PM

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

Comments (1430)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 03 January 2012 07:05:36PM *  4 points [-]

He started "investigating" a child's value to parents with things like the status they could gain from it, instead of obvious things like their instinctive emotional response to it, etc. That's manifestly not what most parents think and feel like.

Emotional distress caused does seem like another important consideration when calculating damages received for baby/property destruction. It probably shouldn't be the only consideration. Just like if I went and cut someone's arm off it would be appropriate to consider the future financial and social loss to that person as well as his emotional attachment to his arm.

It doesn't seem very egalitarian but it may be a bigger crime to cut off the arm of a world class spin bowler (or pitcher) than the arm of a middle manager. It's not like the latter does anything that really needs his arm.

Comment author: Multiheaded 03 January 2012 07:22:58PM 0 points [-]

True enough, but it simply doesn't feel to me that a child can be meaningfully called "property" at all. Hell, I'm not completely sure that a pet dog can be called property.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 03 January 2012 07:50:09PM 1 point [-]

Hypothetical question: if my child expresses the desire to go live with some other family, and that family is willing, and in my judgment that family will treat my child roughly as well as I will, is it OK for me to deny that expressed desire and keep my child with me?

Comment author: Multiheaded 03 January 2012 07:59:01PM *  0 points [-]

(quick edit)

Yes, it's OK, just the same as with a mentally impaired relative under your care, and for roughly the same reasons.

If said relative couldn't be considered property, then neither does this judgment signify that children are property.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 03 January 2012 08:10:20PM 2 points [-]

OK, then... I suspect you and I have very different understandings of what being property entails. If you're interested in unpacking your understanding, I'm interested in hearing it.

Comment author: Multiheaded 03 January 2012 08:12:50PM 0 points [-]

Ok, maybe later.