= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lessdazed comments on Disability Culture Meets the Transhumanist Condition - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (150)
The trick is that the principle is sound, but those implications don't follow, because if I mind if someone does something, it thereby affects me.
One might ask: if I don't know something, how can it affect me, for "we care only about our own states of mind"?
As it turns out, I care about the world directly, and that's the meaning of "affect" here - affecting my utility, not affecting my perception of my utility.
In that case TheOtherDave's statement is completely vacuous.
That goes too far, though. There are plenty of people in the world who would think that all of us should be executed for the doctrines we accept as a common background here. How much say do you think they are entitled to have in LessWrong?
If it's not what they want, that they're not getting it is negative, but it doesn't mean anything here is a net negative.
Regarding "How much say...they are entitled to have", even if they are affected it isn't necessarily good to grant them anything. A loose analogy: in a psychology experiment where one makes even bets on card color from a deck of blue and red cards, if one determines ~75% are red, one should bet red every time. Likewise, those who would execute LWers for common doctrines here should have zero sway despite having an interest greater than zero.