= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jiro comments on Arguments Against Speciesism - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (474)
This has the same flaw as before, just phrased a little differently. "Suppose I am ordering a pizza. If we don't require it to be square, then all sorts of ridiculous possibilities are possible, such as a pizza a half inch wide and 20 feet long. We don't want these ridiculous possibilities, so we better make sure to always order square pizzas."
"If we don't require evidence, then ridiculous conclusions are possible" can be interpreted in English to mean
1) In any case where we don't require evidence, ridiculous conclusions are possible.
2) In at least one case where we don't require evidence, ridiculous conclusions are possible.
Most people who think that the statement is true would be agreeing with it in sense #2, just like with the pizzas. And your argument depends on sense #1.
In other words, you're assuming that if evidence isn't used to rule out racism, then nothing else can rule out racism either.
Fair enough. What if we replace (1) with
Keep in mind that I was responding to Lumifer's comment:
This is not intended to be a grand, sweeping axiom of ethics. I was just pointing out that allowing these subjective opinions proves more than we probably want.
That still has the same flaw. If we allow any and all subjective opinions, then ridiculous conclusions are possible. But it doesn't follow that if we allow some subjective opinions, ridiculous conclusions are possible. And nobody's claiming the former.