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.

Lumifer comments on Open Thread, Apr. 13 - Apr. 19, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: Gondolinian 13 April 2015 12:19AM

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

Comments (319)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 17 April 2015 12:11:49AM 0 points [-]

What does it mean for a person to be an end?

It means that this person's happiness/wellbeing is your terminal goal.

Comment author: Caue 17 April 2015 01:36:36AM *  0 points [-]

I was wondering more about the happiness/wellbeing part than the my terminal goal part.

But about that: it would mean it's one of my terminal goals. I'm also not seeing how it would be incompatible with a "transactional relationship".

I feel there's an intended connotation that it should rank high among his terminal goals (in the example, high enough that he shouldn't end the relationship), but this doesn't necessarily follow from "seeing her as an end in herself".

(I think the "intended correct answer" in the scenario is that he shouldn't want to leave her in that situation. This is compatible with him wanting to stay for her sake, but also with him wanting to stay because he would still enjoy being with her. This latter possibility has a better claim to being a healthy relationship than the former, and it's also entirely compatible with a "transactional attitude" as described by Salemicus)