= 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)
If you're asking what the difference is between 18 - 1 day and 18, then that's already been answered: whenever we need to make a distinction based on a trait that gradually changes, we're going to have to set up some arbitrary boundary where the examples on one side are not very different from the examples on the other. The fact that the two sides are not very different is not a reason not to set the boundary.
In most cases, we have no way to determine who is in such a class of people, that is not susceptible to gaming the system, abuse, and/or incompetent and reckless testing. It's pretty hard to screw up figuring what someone's age is.
So why do we treat age as if it functions as one? Genuinely asking.
Because it's a proxy that deals with the problems I mentioned here much better than attempting to measure competence directly.
So, to be clear, you're not saying that there's no test of competency, but that age is the best test of competency we have?
I guess we're starting to run into the limits of theorizing in the absence of experimentation
So you agree that in the absence of other tests having an age-based cutoff at 18 is better than having no cutoff or a lower cutoff?
If you have a proposal that deals with the problems I've mentioned here and here, I'm willing to consider it.
Not really, but in the absence of spare countries to run controlled trials on...