In response to comment by Roxton on The Fallacy of Gray
Comment author: Larks 29 May 2013 05:27:48PM 1 point [-]

No, many people think coercion qua coercion is wrong - for example, philosophers of a Kantian bent, which is very common in political philosophy.

In response to comment by Larks on The Fallacy of Gray
Comment author: Roxton 29 May 2013 05:57:58PM *  0 points [-]

Point taken, but I would advance the view that the popularity of such a categorical point stems from the fallacy. It seems to be the backbone that makes deontological ethics intuitive.

In any event, it's still clearly an instance of begging the question.

But my goal was to cast a shadow on the off-topic point, not to derail the thread.

In response to The Fallacy of Gray
Comment author: Dan_Burfoot 07 January 2008 09:56:30AM 11 points [-]

That which I cannot eliminate may be well worth reducing.

I wish this basically obvious point was more widely appreciated. I've participated in dozens of conversations which go like this:

Me: "Government is based on the principle of coercive violence. Coercive violence is bad. Therefore government is bad." Person: "Yeah, but we can't get rid of government, because we need it for roads, police, etc." Me: " $%&*@#!! Of course we can't get rid of it entirely, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth reducing!"

Great post. I encourage you to expand on the idea of the Quantitative Way as applied to areas such as self improvement and everyday life.

Comment author: Roxton 29 May 2013 03:26:54PM 3 points [-]

Doesn't "coercive violence is bad" beg the question in a way that would only be deemed natural if one were implicitly invoking the noncentral fallacy?

Comment author: Yvain 11 September 2012 07:40:25PM *  3 points [-]

What's the alternative to rationally debating ideas that violate our moral sensibilities, assuming some people hold them?

Is it to declare with 100% certainty that any idea that violates our moral sensibilities is false? Is it to say that maybe there's a small chance that ideas violating our moral sensibilities are true, but even so we must never discuss them so if they're true we're out of luck and will never reach that true belief? Is it to say we may discuss them, but not rationally - that is, we must let the screaming protesters into the debate so that they can throw eggs and mud onto the debaters because that will improve the quality of discourse?

Also, I bet (and correct me if I'm wrong) that whatever debate you've watched was not about "Let's round up the [Other Folk] and execute them." My guess is it was either about allowing them voluntary euthanasia, allowing abortion or infanticide on the part of their parents, or ceasing to specifically allocate scarce health resources to them.

That means that what we're really talking about is "Any idea that can be massaged into sounding like an idea that violates our moral sensibilities is 100% certainly wrong, or should never be discussed, or needs more egg-throwing."

Comment author: Roxton 18 September 2012 06:55:27PM *  0 points [-]

[Off-topic discussion taken offline.]

Comment author: Roxton 19 July 2011 06:23:40PM 23 points [-]

If you want to promote the republishing of LW articles, I think you'd be more inclined to drop the Singularity/Futurism bits from the tagline. They're alienating and off-message, I think.

Also, when I try to share an article on G+, G+ pulls the following text for summary: "Less Wrong Discussion Future of Humanity InstituteSingularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. Main. Posts; Comments. Discussion. Posts; Comments. Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refin...". No good.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit