army1987 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 11:30:40PM -1 points [-]

Laissez-faire in sex leads to all kinds of expensive negative-sum signaling and other games.

Not completely sure they're actually negative sum. They might look like that from a purely materialistic perspective ("lotteries are bad because the expectation value of how much money you'll have if you play is less than if you don't play" -- it is, but that also applies to going to the cinema), but if you factor in Fun Theory aspects...

Why not crack down on those, which would lead to a clear improvement by any utilitarian metric? If it's OK for the government to ban smoking and other activities harmful for public health, why not extend such treatment to sexual activities that have obvious and drastic public health implications?

I can't think of a way to achieve that (without large costs/risks/drawbacks).

Comment author: [deleted] 15 August 2012 11:01:04PM 1 point [-]

If this was downvoted for disagreement: Why do you think signalling is negative-sum? How you think a ban on certain sexual practices could feasibly (costs not outweighing benefits) be enforced?