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 Wild Moral Dilemmas - Less Wrong Discussion

17 Post author: sixes_and_sevens 12 May 2015 12:56PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (106)

Comments (106)

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

Comment author: Jiro 20 May 2015 03:24:05PM -1 points [-]

I'd like to try again to be clear that I meant "The existence of laws" not "the existence of this one specific law".

What does "nor can I say that any one law benefits society" mean, then, if not "for all X, where X is a law, I can't say that X benefits society"?

For your second comment; Can you make the argument without referring to a specific law?

If your statement applies to all laws, it also applies to worst case scenario laws.

Comment author: Elo 22 May 2015 01:26:46AM 0 points [-]

What does "nor can I say that any one law benefits society" mean, then, if not "for all X, where X is a law, I can't say that X benefits society"?

(My bad - bad use of words the first time around)

"nor can I say that any one law benefits society" "for all X, where X is a law, I can't say that X benefits society"

how does: "for one X alone, where X is a law, I can't say that X benefits society" Sound?

Please explain (or expand) the reference to "worst case scenarios"?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit