= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cameroncowan comments on Omission vs commission and conservation of expected moral evidence - 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 (7)
That doesn't work because to not wirehead humanity is not the same as doing it and has different implications and whether it was right or wrong as you say won't matter when it is done.. Whereas if you decide to stop someone from doing that NOT stopping them is morally worse (ostensibly) than agreeing with it. Inaction, is itself an action. If there is wrong occurring, to decide to not stop it is just as bad as doing it. However, choosing not to do something bad is not the same as doing it.
I'm arguing against some poorly thought out motivations; eg "don't do anything that most people would disagree with most of the time". This falls apart if you can act to change "people would disagree with" through some means other than preference satisfaction.
That is all fine and well but that is beyond the scope of moral statements. Thats just thinking about why do people make decisions and whether those decisions are good or bad. If you were buddhist you might not do that because you don't want your Karma mixed up with the event going on and so on.