= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jiro comments on A Parable On Obsolete Ideologies - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (272)
People frequently use phrases describing morally objectionable actions as metaphors for morally acceptable (and prudential) actions. For example, "eviscerate" is sometimes used as a metaphor for achieving a decisive victory in a debate or a sporting event. While actually eviscerating one's debate opponent would be morally objectionable, winning a debate is not morally objectionable. There are many other examples of this sort of thing, particularly in sports journalism.
We generally do that when there is an unobjectionable version of the action and it can be exaggerated into the objectionable one. It would be wrong to eviscerate an opponent in an actual violent fight, but it would be okay to hurt an opponent in one.
Jesus zapping the tree is not just objectionable because it is too extreme; Jesus shouting at the tree or even politely condemning it wouldn't be acceptable.
Politely condemning a tree is not acceptable? You have a pretty strict ethic! :)
It's unacceptable in the sense that he has no reason to condemn it and that doing so with serious intent is a sign of a personality flaw, even if such behavior wouldn't be enough to get him thrown out of a restaurant.