= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jiro comments on Torture vs. Dust Specks - 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 (596)
So you recognize that your original statement about $1 versus bankruptcy also forces you to make the same conclusion about $20.00 versus $20.01 (or whatever the actual number is, since you don't know it).
But making the conclusion about $20.00 versus $20.01 is much harder to justify. Can you justify it? You have to be able to, since it is implied by your original statement.
No I don´t have to make the same conclusion about 20.00 dollar versus 20.01. I left a safety margin when I said 1 dollar since I don´t want to follow the sequence but am very, very sure that 1 dollar is a safe number. I don´t know exactly how much I can risk taking from a random individual before I risk ruining him, but if I take only one dollar from a person who can afford a house and food, I am pretty safe.
Yes, you do. You just admitted it, although the number might not be 20. And whether you admit it or not it logically follows from what you said up above.
Maybe I didn´t understand you the first time.
Your belief about $1 versus bankruptcy logically implies a similar belief about $20.00 versus $20.01 (or whatever the actual numbers are). You can't just answer that that "might" be the case--if your original belief is as described, that is the case. You have to be willing to defend the logical consequence of what you said, not just defend the exact words that you said.
What do you mean with "whatever the actual numbers are". Numbers for what? For the amount that takes to ruin someone? As long as the individual donations doesn´t ruin the donators I accept a higher donation from a smaller population. Is that what you mean?
I just wrote 20 because I have to write something, but there is a number. This number has a value, even if you don't know it. Pretend I put the real number there instead of 20.
Yes, but still, what number? IF it is as I already suggested, the number for the amount of money that can be taken without ruining anyone, then I agree that we could take that amount of money instead of 1 dollar.
So you're saying there exists such a number, such that taking that amount of money from someone wouldn't ruin them, but taking that amount plus a tiny bit more (say, 1 cent) would?
I don't think you understand.
Yout original statement about $1 versus bankruptcy logically implies that there is a number such that that it is okay to take exactly that amount of money from a certain number of people, but wrong to take a very tiny amount more. Even though you don't know exactly what this number is, you know that it exists. Because this number is a logical consequence of what you said, you must be able to justify having such a number.
Yes, in my last comment I agreed to it. There is such a number. I don't think you understand my reasons why, which I already explained. It is wrong to take a tiny amoint more, since that will ruin them. I can'tknow ecactly what that is since global and local economy isn`t that stable. Tapping out.