You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Jiro comments on Discussion of Slate Star Codex: "Extremism in Thought Experiments is No Vice" - Less Wrong Discussion

15 Post author: Artaxerxes 28 March 2015 09:17AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (110)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jiro 30 March 2015 05:09:11AM *  4 points [-]

The fantasy isn't mainly that Robertson likes torturing atheists or thinks his audience does. The fantasy is that their own atheism is responsible for them being tortured and that the awfulness of that demonstrates that atheism is awful. Whether his audience likes hearing about atheists suffering is a side issue.

.You don't promote the Holocaust by talking about how much pain the Jews would suffer in concentration camps.

That's a bad comparison because Nazis did not believe that Jews could or should give up being Jews.

Comment author: samath 30 March 2015 02:41:41PM 5 points [-]

Hmmm, I think a better word than "fantasy" here is "dystopia." Robertson is painting a bleak picture of a world where without moral authority, like the (much longer) bleak depiction of say, Fahrenheit 451 of a world without intellectual freedoms. Again, the natural reaction to reading Fahrenheit 451 or hearing Robertson isn't gleeful cackling, but shocked horror. "Something ain't right."

Comment author: Unknowns 30 March 2015 05:23:16AM 1 point [-]

Robertson is mistaken in believing that atheists all deny the existence of right and wrong. However, from a timeless decision point of view, someone who does in fact deny the existence of right and wrong is at least partly "responsible" for it if he is murdered by someone who does not believe that murder is wrong and who would not have done it if he did believe it was wrong.

Saying he has no responsibility at all in this sense, would be like saying that the person who takes two boxes in a Newcomb situation is not responsible for the fact that he didn't get the million.