= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
buybuydandavis comments on Terrorist baby down the well: a look at institutional forces - 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 (23)
You've identified where the distinction lies, but missed the reason why there is a distinction.
It is entirely appropriate to take different actions against an agent vs. a force of nature. One can't deter nature, and nature shows no intent. Agency matters. The most dangerous threats to humans are other humans.
(Except for aging, about which people are particularly crazy, but that's a special case.)
It's not just that. A lot of our ethical injunctions need to be suspected during wartime, thus it makes sense to be suspicious of attempts to make use of this loophole by expanding the definition of "war".
In what sense? Other humans are certainly not very high on the list of top causes of death.
They are somewhat high on the list of top black swan events, however.
Not as in "murder" but as in omission or acting in self-interest (and tragedy of the commons).