Decius comments on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? - Less Wrong

157 Post author: Yvain 27 August 2012 03:36AM

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

Comments (1742)

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

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 31 August 2012 09:01:42PM 1 point [-]

but because I have a philosophical need for people, who are metaphysically equal, to be treated as metaphysically equal.

I invite you to consider the possibility that what people are, and how people should be treated as, may possibly be two different things. If they're not "metaphysically equal", perhaps it's still best that they be treated as such.

Comment author: Decius 01 September 2012 01:28:32AM 0 points [-]

If things are different in a significant way, it is appropriate that they are treated as different.

It is a premise of mine that people are metaphysically equal; to delve further into that we need to discuss what 'people' means. I doubt that you will find such a discussion rewarding.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 September 2012 02:12:41AM 1 point [-]

I'd like to know what you mean by 'metaphysically equal'?

Comment author: Decius 02 September 2012 02:29:49AM 1 point [-]

Equal, in every sense that cannot be falsified by the observation of privilege or inequality which exists only in the embodied world.

Basically, it's a way of creating a metaphysical entity "person", which is defined to be that which exercises control over the physical embodiment of that person. By making the moral agent an abstract rather than a concrete, the inequalities which exist in the concrete world do not falsify the claim to general equality.

For example, people do not lose or gain rights as their fortunes change.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 03 September 2012 02:31:24AM 1 point [-]

By that definition aren't people 'metaphysically equal' to rocks?

Comment author: Decius 03 September 2012 03:45:15AM 0 points [-]

What is the metaphysical entity "rock", and how do the actions of physical geology reflect them? When a person consents to a transaction in the world, their body is what makes the decision and indicates to other people's bodies that consent is present.

If a rock consents to an action which involves a geologic object, how would it indicate that to other physical objects?