I believe the "free will" thing is because without it, you could talk about whether or not a rock is moral. You could just say whether or not the universe is moral.

I consider morality to be an aspect of the universe (a universe with happier people is better, even if nobody's responsible), so I don't see any importance of free will.

I'd just like to point out a little flaw in your construction of other people's morality, and offer what I think is a better model for understanding this issue.

First, I wouldn't say that people have a morality that agrees with God. They have a God that agrees with their morality. Reading bible passages to people is unlikely to wobble their moral compass; they'll just say those no longer apply or you're taking them too literally or some such. God isn't so much of a source of morality as a post hoc rationalization of a deeper impulse.

Second, this whole system makes a lot of sense if you think of it in terms of "how likely is it for me to do that?" Kind of like a Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance. If the defendant is a sociopath who killed people for fun, I have a pretty easy time saying, "I can easily restrain myself from killing people for fun. He should have done that. Let him burn!" Conversely, when the defendant is a soldier who has PTSD, I think, "You know, if I'd been through what he'd been through, I may very well have done the same thing, even though it was wrong. We should go easy on him."

This also explains various problems the law had back when people were exceedingly racist or sexist, as people would not have though, "I could just as easily have been of a different race."

I admit I haven't fleshed this out fully, but it seems to agree with the end results more consistently than most other theories.

I'm half-tempted to schedule a meetup in the ruins of downtown San Francisco at noon on April 9, 2036. I'll be in what used to be the Ferry Building, wearing a hazmat suit with "Less Wrong" written on the front.

I approve of Delete = Disable account, for the reasons you outlined.

Fair point.

I split them up now. Not sure if I was supposed to do that, but you can just reply here about that.

No, I should bloody well not get more exercise, because when I do, I can't fucking breathe. Understood?

(Also I overheat, really easily.)

It felt like I was following, say for analogy, a discussion among filipinos who were switching back and forth between English and Tagalog. But re-reading it twice I started to get the flow and terms. E.g. "nodnod" was opaque initially.

I've known a number of people who suffer from suicidal depression, and talked a couple people down from suicide myself. Most of them are aware of the "suicide is stupid and selfish" interpretation, but find it extremely hard to buy that anyone will be meaningfully hurt by their deaths, or that their life has realistic prospects to get better, while in a suicidal state.

Models? The only one I saw was basic 'ask for things you think will be rejected' - with a few extra bits like the 30-day-challenge and rejection cards. What different models did you find? And which do you think would work best?

People just have no clue about their genuine nature. I have countless friends who describe themselves as "cynical," and they're all wrong. True cynics would never classify themselves as such, because it would mean that they know their view of the world is unjustly negative; despite their best efforts at being grumpy, a self-described cynic is secretly optimistic about normal human nature. Individuals who are truly cynical will always insist they're pragmatic. The same goes for anyone who claims to be "creative." If you define your personality as creative, it only means you understand what is perceived to be creative by the world at large, so you're really just following a rote creative template. That's the opposite of creativity. Everybody is wrong about everything, just about all the time.

— Chuck Klosterman