= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Salemicus comments on Open thread, Sept. 1-7, 2014 - 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 (162)
Yes, any. If you have a theory of justice that can't be applied to the question at hand, it isn't relevant to the question at hand. That doesn't mean your theory isn't a good one, it just means it has reached its limits. For example, a Rawlsian theory of justice has nothing to say about whether bananas are delicious.
Well, that's what the just world hypothesis states. You are fully entitled to view it as a theory of causality rather than justice, but you aren't arguing against it by doing so. That is what I mean by "applicable" and "relevant." If you have a theory of justice that neither supports nor contradicts the just world hypothesis, that's all well and good, but it doesn't speak to the questions I'm dealing with, i.e.:
Can you state it in less Biblical and more conventional and well-defined terms?
I doubt that the just world hypothesis specifies what kind of grain I can harvest after planting rye seeds and in a more general interpretation it boils down to "your actions will cause consequences" which is true but banal.
As per Wikipedia:
If you accept this definition of the just-world hypothesis as a cognitive bias then your inquiry into whether it is true does not make any sense.
Third party here, but I'd consider the just-world hypothesis something like the converse of the golden rule: The world will do unto you as you do unto others.
So is that, essentially, the idea of karma?
Karma is one flavor of it, yes.