= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open Thread, October 7 - October 12, 2013 - 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 (312)
I think the word "impulse" is providing more confusion here than light.
Let's unpack. You have a biologically hardwired desire/instinct to eat. That provides you with a "natural" goal that you may reach through a variety of instrumental ways. Some of them are more acceptable (either from a psychological or from a cultural standpoint), some of them less.
Similarly, there is a desire/instinct to, say, have sex. That, however, doesn't make rape "natural" as what's "natural" is desire, not a particular way to satisfy it. There are ways to have sex other than through rape -- just as there are ways to eat other than by stealing food and ways to assert dominance other than by punching someone in the face. That's why distinguishing between the underlying desire and the specific way chosen to satisfy it is important.
No, I don't think so. Do you have any particular examples?
OK.
So going back to the OP I responded to... when two 14 year olds have sex, is that a specific way, or an underlying desire?
When the OP says it's common sense not to imprison teenagers "just because of his/her natural impulses", is it referring to specific ways, or underlying desires?