MugaSofer comments on Dangers of steelmanning / principle of charity - Less Wrong

88 Post author: gothgirl420666 16 January 2014 06:35AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (91)

Comments (91)

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

Comment author: MugaSofer 18 January 2014 02:39:07PM *  -2 points [-]

Except he isn't doing that. He's misrepresenting people's arguments (due to misunderstanding?), tearing his strawman apart, and then "explaining" the poor quality of this argument by declaring that his opponents are lying about their beliefs, and their actual beliefs consist of simple deontological rules.

What bothers me is when they do this and they pretend they’re making a value-free statement about respecting the rights of others. “Oh, well, we’re a liberal democracy and people should be able to do whatever they like with their own bodies, but I’m just worried about people being euthanized against their will, and that would be a violation of consent, and a good liberal democracy like us wouldn’t want to violate consent, nosirree!”

No. You do not care how many people are kept alive without their consent, just like you do not care how many people work McJobs without their consent, or how many people feel pressured into going to social gatherings they don’t want to attend. You care about consent solely when it serves the purpose of your sacred values. You would gladly violate the consent of a billion people on some unrelated issue rather than risk a single consent violation of your own personal pet project.

... and obviously, an arbitrary set of deontological rules is not an argument, so he no longer has to actually disprove it.

I'm starting to think I need to write a larger deconstruction of his post, actually, but I hope you see what I mean. (Thank Azathoth that Yvain is such a clear writer and thinker so I can show this so simply with quotes like this. Although I suppose he wouldn't have as many of us caring what he writes if it wasn't worth reading.)

Comment author: JGWeissman 18 January 2014 03:47:00PM 3 points [-]

Yvain says that people claim to be using one simple deontological rule "Don't violate consent" when in fact they are using a complicated collection of rules of the form "Don't violate consent in this specific domain" while not following other rules of that form.

And yet, you accuse him of strawmanning their argument to be simple.

Comment author: MugaSofer 18 January 2014 08:07:11PM *  -1 points [-]

Yvain says that people claim to be using one simple deontological rule "Don't violate consent"

Sort of, yes. I definitely need to write a full post on why I believe his criticism is subtly unfair in various ways - likely because this is an emotional subject for him, so he is somewhat less inclined to pull his punches and steelman opposing views; and he is both a brilliant writer and a brilliant thinker.

in fact they are using a complicated collection of rules of the form "Don't violate consent in this specific domain" while not following other rules of that form

Actually, he accuses them of claiming to, and advocating following those rules only in those situations where doing so agrees with their agenda - which he characterizes, not unreasonably. A charge of hypocrisy, rather than inconsistency.

And yet, you accuse him of strawmanning their argument to be simple.

I do? I accuse him of strawmanning their arguments to be cartoonishly poor arguments, but simple...?

Ah! Are you perhaps referring to my characterization of simple deontological rules ("thou shalt not kill" etc.)? Yes, I would generally reject those as overly simple - there are many situation where one might be called upon to kill for the greater good, for example.

(There are vast differences between deontological ethics, rule utilitarianism, and the optimal laws for legal systems both real and hypothetical.)

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit