= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ArisKatsaris 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)
I don't see how the law can have a consistent set of ethics if on the one hand it allows parents to say no to their children's vision being restored, and on the other hand forbids them from surgically removing their kids' eyes.
Either the kids having vision is a good thing that they can't be legitimately denied of (no matter what their parents say), or it's a thing that they can be legitimately denied of, and falls under parental jurisdiction.
If the parents have the right to deny vision or hearing from their children, what's the difference whether said kids would need a surgery to restore it, or to remove it?
You seem to be confusing ethics and law. The law needs to be a Schelling point, and "you don't have to help but aren't allowed to hurt", is probably as good a Schelling point as your going to find.
Not quite, though I should have spoken generally about rulesets, instead of laws. Whether it's a personal ruleset, or a legal ruleset, it needs be logically consistent.
That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, since the parents in questions wouldn't be forced to help, they just wouldn't be allowed to hurt by preventing others from helping.
A parent may not injure a child or, through inaction, allow a child to come to harm...?
Just foists the whole problem off on whoever has to define "harm." That's what a lot of modern law ultimately comes down to, of course, but I don't think that's a desirable endpoint.
Yes, this is why we can't build a FAI just by implementing the Three Laws.
(nods) I share your intuitions here.
That said, I can imagine cultures that don't. For example, I can imagine a culture that forbids me from forcibly blinding people (including my children) but doesn't obligate me to grant them sight, and arrives at those mores consistently by framing the whole question as one of property rights... much like my culture forbids me from forcibly taking your money but doesn't obligate me to provide you with money if you lack it (1).
Of course, such a hypothetical culture would also need to have a notion of children's property rights as distinct from their parents', which my culture mostly doesn't, but that's easy enough for me to imagine.
Even if I couldn't imagine such a culture, though, I generally think it's a mistake to treat my failures of imagination as data about anything but the limits of my imagination.
===
(1) - Individually, I mean. Collectively/indirectly my culture does obligate me, in the form of taxes and welfare programs... but then again, collectively/indirectly my culture also allows me to forcibly take your money, in the form of government- and court-imposed fines.)
At present, surgery in itself is harmful and risky.
In the future, that distinction may evaporate, sure.