= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
private_messaging comments on Fascists and Rakes - 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 (67)
Or decrease utility, if the decreased population results in lower utility. Or increase utility less than some alternatives.
Likewise with the other examples; while you can of course assert about any action, no matter how harmful, that it is a net benefit (in a far enough future), trying to achieve a net benefit leads to different actions than trying to achieve the benefit for the sake of the group(s) that you personally belong to, and this difference shows very clearly.
BTW, I at least partially agree with the argument against of drug legalization.
The arguments that were originally used are what I refer to, not really the recent debates where old choices are rationalized on different grounds.
Near as I can tell, this is very similar to the argument I made with some comments about how propensity to fall to said "devil's offers" was correlated with race.