= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TimS comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 14, chapter 82 - 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 (790)
If Dumbledore endorsed the burning-alive (even after the fact), then I think Harry's promise requires him to take Dumbledore as an enemy.
That said, I'm not sure that D has endorsed the act, so much as declined to shoot an ally - which isn't quite the same moral position. (Or is it? Have to think about that).
Well, if I evaluate in terms of expected consequences, it seems the question reduces to what effect the two things have on the odds that someone will be burned alive in the future.
The answer to which is of course uncertain, but I can certainly see the argument that demonstrating that I won't enforce any negative consequences for you burning our shared enemies alive has about the same effect on those odds as endorsing burning our shared enemies alive.
So your position is that HP is obligated (based on what he knows right now) to take D as his enemy or forsake his promise to Draco?
I don't have a position on that question; I don't know what HP promised Draco or how it relates to D.
My position is that declining to "shoot" (taking that metaphorically to mean punish) an ally who performed an act is usually pretty much morally equivalent to endorsing that act.