fubarobfusco comments on What is moral foundation theory good for? - Less Wrong

9 Post author: novalis 12 August 2012 05:03AM

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

Comments (296)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 14 August 2012 11:40:37PM *  -1 points [-]

OK, let's put the Rawlsian veil of ignorance down. So I don't know who I'm going to be. I'd still prefer a few parts-per-thousand probability of getting AIDS than a 10% probability of having a sexual orientation for a gender with whom I'm forbidden from having sex with.

(OTOH, a monogamous relationship, incl. marriage, is more-or-less-implicitly a contract where you agree --among other things-- not to have sex with anyone else, so I do agree that the behaviour of “the entire apparatus of state” you describe in the second part of the last paragraph is wrong.)

EDIT: Retracted -- numbers are way off (see below).

They want to vaccinate vast numbers of people that are unlikely to need it at considerable expense

How much?

Comment author: fubarobfusco 15 August 2012 12:54:07AM 0 points [-]

OTOH, a monogamous relationship, incl. marriage, is more-or-less-implicitly a contract where you agree --among other things-- not to have sex with anyone else

Cheating is quite common; about 20% of married people have affairs and the rate is higher in putatively-monogamous unmarried partnerships. Around 3% of children are the result of affairs.

I'm not sure what other sorts of "contracts" have a 20% chance of default. I don't think banks would offer you a loan if they thought there was a 20% chance you wouldn't pay up. Even Florida's foreclosure rate isn't that bad!

Comment author: [deleted] 17 August 2012 08:38:06PM 1 point [-]

End-user licence agreements of commercial software?