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.

Dagon comments on Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: MrMind 14 March 2016 08:02AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (212)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (212)

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

Comment author: Dagon 16 March 2016 03:18:16PM 0 points [-]

Asserting a right to eat is not just a statement about current food supply ownership or access. It's saying that, if food is later created, the right applies to that too. Conversely, if I have the right not to grow food or not to give it to someone else, I am allowed to ignore their pain.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 March 2016 03:28:45PM 0 points [-]

Asserting a right to eat is not just a statement about current food supply ownership or access. It's saying that, if food is later created, the right applies to that too.

Don't most rights work this way? I think it's just the default.

I am allowed to ignore their pain.

I don't quite understand the "allowed to ignore" part. What is the alternative, Clockwork Orange-style therapy?

Comment author: Jiro 16 March 2016 10:15:30PM 0 points [-]

"I am allowed to X" in this context means "X is not worthy of moral condemnation, and forcibly stopping X is worthy of moral condemnation".

Comment author: Dagon 17 March 2016 01:54:24AM 0 points [-]

Moral condemnation or application of force are the common responses.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit