= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kindly comments on Discussion of Slate Star Codex: "Extremism in Thought Experiments is No Vice" - 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 (110)
I don't think that's true in any important way.
I might say: "Killing Joe is bad because Joe would like not to be killed, and enjoys continuing to live. Also, Joe's friends would be sad if Joe died." This is not a sophisticated argument. If an atheist would have a hard time making it, it's only because one feels awkward making such an unsophisticated argument in a debate about morality.
Replace "Killing Joe", with say "not giving Joe a million dollars" in that argument, what changes?
What changes is that I would like to have a million dollars as much as Joe would. Similarly, if I had to trade between Joe's desire to live and my own, the latter would win.
In another comment you claim that I do not believe my own argument. This is false. I know this because if we suppose that Joe would like to be killed, and Joe's friends would not be said if he died, then I am okay with Joe's death. So there is no other hidden factor that moves me.
I'm not sure what the observation that I do not give all of my money away to charity has to do with anything.
Um, what are you using to compare preferences across people.
How about Joe's desire to live against you desire to not have him annoy you, or to have sex with his wife, or any number of other possible motives?