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.

username2 comments on Open Thread May 16 - May 22, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Elo 15 May 2016 11:35PM

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

Comments (121)

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

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 16 May 2016 07:06:15PM *  1 point [-]

One very important question a moral system has to answer is: how do you deal with people who won't adopt the moral system? Here are three basic answers:

  • Indifference - leave people who don't adopt the system alone. Let them do their own thing.
  • Compulsion - require people to adopt the moral system, using varying degrees of coercive power (social shaming, jail, financial penalties, etc)
  • Fences - build a fence, allow people who follow the system inside, and exclude everyone else.

Are there others? Which one of these options seems the best to you?

Comment author: username2 16 May 2016 08:13:47PM *  4 points [-]
  • Interacting with those people in limited settings. Using different systems in different settings. A system doesn't have to encompass all human interactions.

  • Use rewards instead of punishments. Similar to your second point, but feels differently.

By the way, your third point is a special case of your second one.

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 17 May 2016 01:37:14PM 1 point [-]

your third point is a special case of your second one.

I feel strongly that there is a qualitative difference between fence-building and compulsion, especially if the fenced area is small.

Your first suggestion seems like fence-building in different domains (social, financial, etc).

Comment author: TimS 22 May 2016 05:00:25PM *  0 points [-]

That's a weird definition of compulsion in this context. Others want to make choices. Sometimes those choices impact things you value. Sometime they doesn't.

But preventing people from acting on choices seems like the common thread. Privileging whether things you value are effected seems relevant to whether the prevention is morally justified, but from point of view of preventing the implementation of another's choice, the idea of compulsion seems identical.

In short, I assert the morally neutral description of an action ought not to vary based on moral judgment about the action.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 May 2016 02:19:00PM 0 points [-]

I feel strongly that there is a qualitative difference between fence-building and compulsion

I agree. In crude terms, compulsion is forcing other people to change; fence-building is yourself withdrawing.

Comment author: Stingray 17 May 2016 04:54:13PM *  1 point [-]

This distinction is blurry. Which side do boycotts fall on?

Comment author: Lumifer 17 May 2016 06:33:08PM 2 points [-]

Public, organized boycotts are compulsion since they have the clear goal of changing the others' behaviour. If you just quietly stop buying products from Acme without telling everyone (including Acme) about it, that's withdrawal.