Decius comments on By Which It May Be Judged - Less Wrong

35 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 10 December 2012 04:26AM

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

Comments (934)

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

Comment author: nshepperd 19 December 2012 08:38:27AM 1 point [-]

Being involved in the war isn't equivalent to being killed. I find it quite conceivable that I might want to involve myself in the war against, say, the babyeaters, without consenting to being killed by the babyeaters. I mean, ideally the war would go like this: we attack, babyeaters roll over and die, end.

I'm not really sure what is the use of a definition of "consent" whereby involving myself in war causes me to automatically "consent" to being shot at. The whole point of fighting is that you think you ought to win.

Comment author: Decius 19 December 2012 07:53:04PM 0 points [-]

Did all of the participants in the violent conflict voluntarily enter it? If so, then they have consented to the outcome.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 21 December 2012 03:35:08AM 2 points [-]

Did all of the participants in the violent conflict voluntarily enter it?

Generally not, actually.

Comment author: Decius 21 December 2012 05:59:28AM 0 points [-]

Those who engage in an action in which not all participants enter of their own will is immoral. Yes, war is generally immoral in the modern era.

Comment author: nshepperd 22 December 2012 02:57:23AM 2 points [-]

Those who engage in an action in which not all participants enter of their own will is immoral.

A theory of morality that looks nice on paper but is completely wrong. In a war between Good and Evil, Good should win. It doesn't matter if Evil consented.

Comment author: Decius 22 December 2012 03:40:16AM 0 points [-]

You're following narrative logic there. Also, using the definitions given, anyone who unilaterally starts a war is Evil, and anyone who starts a war consents to it. It is logically impossible for Good to defeat Evil in a contest that Evil did not willingly choose to engage in.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 22 December 2012 07:35:56AM 1 point [-]

What if Evil is actively engaged in say torturing others?

Comment author: Decius 22 December 2012 07:41:51AM 0 points [-]

What if Evil is actively engaged in say torturing others? [Without the consent of the tortured]

Acts like constitute acts of the 'war' between Good and Evil that you are so eager to have. Have at them.

Comment author: nshepperd 22 December 2012 05:46:35AM *  1 point [-]

Right, just like it's logically impossible for Good to declare war against Evil to prevent or stop Evil from doing bad things that aren't war.

Comment author: Decius 22 December 2012 07:27:53AM 1 point [-]

Exactly. You can't be Good and do immoral things. Also, abstractions don't take actions.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 December 2012 02:25:57AM 2 points [-]

Those who engage in an action in which not all participants enter of their own will is immoral.

Er, that kind-of includes asking a stranger for the time.

Comment author: Decius 22 December 2012 02:39:49AM 0 points [-]

Er, that kind-of includes asking a stranger for the time.

Now we enter the realm of the social contract and implied consent.