sam0345 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: sam0345 15 August 2012 04:01:39AM *  4 points [-]

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

How much?

Last I heard, $400 for a course, $100 for a dose. If this did not involve sex, such a vaccine would be targeted at at risk populations.

A ten pack of combined tetanus and diptheria vaccine costs $20 and everyone is at roughly comparable risk, so it is reasonable to give the tet/dipth vaccine out like lollipops or McDonald's toys. Maybe the HPV vaccination should be handed out free at the sex clinic, but it seems to me that the reason that they want to give it to schoolgirls is because they do not want to give it out free at the sex clinic.