The point I was trying to make is that, while I see females as agents in real life, in this analogy I am discussing the ethics of a choice that is only made by men.

You don't succeed in avoiding getting mind killed yourself. You switch for no reason towards real life.

For any of those things, if you give me a specific reason why it is relevant to the choice made by the Green Martians, then it certainly should have been part of the analogy.

General ethical consideration suggest that you only inflict pain on other humans if they consent. A doctor will only operate on a patient if the patient consents, even if the doctor believes that a decision to not consent is bad for the patient given the stated preferences of the patient. Respecting that decision means respecting the agentship of the patient.

That's even true for decisions such as whether to get vaccinated where herd immunity is a concern. No single person if forced to feel pain by getting vaccinate for the good of the group.

I definitely see the humans as agents, whose preferences are morally relevant.

Agents make decisions. The moment you ignore decision making and only think in terms of preferences agentship is gone.

Okay, women have a preference along a single axis which they do nothing about and do not express at all. The framework as described is all about what active agenty men could or should do to entirely passive npc women. I'm very far from being a feminist, but come on -- this is objectification and "don't worry your pretty head about it".

I feel like parables here on LW, especially the longer and more tortured ones, are pretty much fallacy and bias breeding grounds. A couple egregious offenders, to my mind, include

Blue and Green Martians; about pick-up artistry

and

The Fable of the Dragon Tyrant; about death

Why do I take issue with them? Because while using analogies, including fanciful ones, can help us take the outside view on a problem where we are irrationally biased, these sorts of parables can also be a selective re-telling of the facts, and conclusions drawn from them simply don't transfer to the real world because of the way those facts are distorted, elided or transformed. Any argument with the conclusion then has to take us back to whatever the real-world analogue is, and explain why the parable is flawed.

In other words, a parable (particularly the long-winded, over-constructed sort people like to post on LW) can give you an outside view but it often just pulls you away from the only way to actually solve a problem: to engage with the problem, down the the gritty details that will be erased or distorted by a parable.

It's been a day since this discussion peaked, and I've had a chance to think a little bit more about this on a meta-level:

First of all, having a community built around epistemic hygiene is extremely valuable. Discussions about topics that involve mindkill are incredibly unpleasant, and may make it impossible for such a community to be successful. I therefore fully understand people who want to keep these discussions away from Less Wrong, and I won't post again on this topic or any other mindkilling topic.

That said, I think the inability to discuss this rationally and dispassionately is a major problem for society in general, which may contribute to some individuals with abnormal psychology reacting in unpredictable ways. My only view on the object-level question is that low status men get a raw deal, that there is no good solution to the problem, and that PUA is probably very bad ethically. I have natural sympathy for low-status men, but I recognize that I may be biased because I have no experience seeing the situation from a female perspective. The post was an attempt to invite people to help me update my moral beliefs, by hearing from people who do not have those biases. Importantly, this could not have been done on any other website, because they would have been unable to convince me that their moral framework was coherent, that they are being honest about their ethical beliefs, or that they have made a good-faith effort to model low status males as relevant participants in the moral calculus.

There was some really good discussion in this thread, particularly Skeptical Lurker's comment, which may have made me aware of a contradiction in my worldview. I will keep thinking about what updates may be necessary. This is exactly the kind of feedback that I was hoping for - changing your mind is a good thing, and it is only possible if we can gave a genuine discussion as rationalists.

That said, for the Less Wrong community, the cost of these discussions probably outweighs the benefits.

From the reactions, it is tempting to conclude that most people object to PUA partially on epistemic grounds.

It seems that a common objection is that your analogy does not match well the PUA worldview.

I believe there exists an objective moral standard which is part of the territory. ... Obviously, we are unable to know whether our ethical maps correspond to the ethical territory.

Hold on. You're saying that there's objective morality but it's unknowable in principle? Then on what basis do you believe it exists and why would its existence even matter?

If we don't believe there is such a thing as an objective ethical standard ... then I fail to see the point in even discussing ethics.

Even if you think that ethics are a semi-arbitrary social construct, they are very useful for human societies and so worth discussing.

I want to point out that I, perhaps incorrectly, assumed this thought experiment could be interesting even to the anti-PUA crowd, because it would help them distill their thinking about whether they object to PUA on epistemic grounds ("they have incorrect beliefs about female psychology") or if they object on moral grounds ("they draw incorrect / evil conclusions about the ethical implications of the theory")

From the reactions, it is tempting to conclude that most people object to PUA partially on epistemic grounds. However, it is hard for me to understand why a disagreement about facts would lead to such heated debate in a community based around the Litany of Tarski.

I took no position on the truth value of the premises.

Your translation of the analogy takes the postition that the status dichotomy is a thing. The rest follows from that assumption.

If the views I enumerated are not your views, you need to refine your analogy, because the way it's written matches them neatly. The fact that my list of proposed solutions was perceived as having an overly physical emphasis seems to me like evidence of how much this analogy oversimplifies what it tries to represent.

Let's reread your post:

an unjust world, where the ethics of an act is determined by characteristics of the Martian that they cannot be held responsible for.

Being a pleasant person to be around is beyond a man's responsibility?

However, human ethicists are not very familiar with Martian physiology...

Is this supposed to mean that women don't get how the male mind works?

a group of recently metamorphosed Blue Martians are vocally spreading information on the internet about tickling techniques.

They may be green for all we know. Being a published guru is no guarantee that he knows what he's talking about.

if used imperfectly they increase the sting of the stinging hairs fourfold.

It may be the method's fault as often as the user's.

Now let's address your actual questions:

Is it unethical for a Green Martian to attempt to metamorphose?

Is it unethical to attempt to become a better person? Absolutely not. BUT, as with everything, a good end does not justify nasty means.

Does this depend on whether they believe themselves to be fast or slow learners?

In your example, tickling is described in terms one would commonly use to refer to an optional pastime, but it actually stands for a fundamental biological urge with deep psychological and social consequences. This complicates the attempt to give an answer. Should I try to play chess? is not the same question as Should I try to get laid? Having a low expectation of success in mastering a pastime does affect your motivation to learn it, while it only has a moderate effect on your motivation to follow your biological urges. However, since there's nothing wrong with wanting to get laid per se, or wanting to become a more desirable person, I'll answer that everyone should be allowed, in fact encouraged, to learn.

Should only the small subset of Martians who intuitively understand the tickling techniques be allowed to use them?

Chess child prodigies should have the chance to play as much as they like, but it makes no sense to keep the game's rules from everyone else. So, same as the previous question.

Is spreading explicit information about the techniques unethical?

It is only as acceptable as the techniques themselves.

Is Action X moral?

That's an ill posed question. Moral, according to what/whose moral standard?

If Clippy successfully grinds up half of humanity, and churns them out as shiny new paper clips, he would likely consider himself mighty moral_clippy ( if he even has a concept of morality - does he?). But we wouldn't find him so moral_human, or moral_human_i.

The various twists and turns of the scenario merely obfuscate the more fundamental issue - what/whose moral standards are we talking about?