4 ms·

I don't want to be uncharitable so let me make sure I'm understanding you. Are you embracing the same rhetorical sequence that others often use to argue that ma

I don't want to be uncharitable so let me make sure I'm understanding you. Are you embracing the same rhetorical sequence that others often use to argue that mandatory vaccination is a bad thing? I.e. are you arguing that people's fear of a thing ought to be as significant a consideration as the real benefits it brings to them and others around them?

netcan 17y ago
Yes I am. Be uncharitable. I think it's all a matter of degrees. If the "right" policy offends people's religious ideas, nationalism, instinctive irrationality's, or whatever else, this might have consequences that outweigh the benefits of this policy. People being irrational can do damage. An obvious example is civil unrest which is often a good reason not to implement liberal/libertarian policies in many places.
- houseabsolute 17y ago
  > An obvious example is civil unrest which is often a good reason not to implement liberal/libertarian policies in many places. It's only a good reason because there are other good reasons to implement those policies too. Civil unrest would not be a good reason to begin beheading petty criminals, no matter how scared people were of being pick-pocketed. I'll give it to you that it is a matter of degrees, but the amount of fear that would be required to outweigh even the smallest iota of real benefit would have to be enormous. If robot trucks saved just one life per year on average, it would be morally unacceptable to obstruct their implementation even if they induced the same amount of fear as all the fears of planes crashing and terrorist attacks.
  - netcan 17y ago
    If Robot trucks saved 1 life per year, they would be killing people every week (assuming they replaced all trucks). Every week you would have reports about faulty software, potential hacks and such. It would be massive scares. There are lots of places where lives are lost because a certain narrative is something that the public can swallow. You could spend billions of virtually useless aviation security dollars to save many lives. How would the public react to 50 terrorism deaths, twice a decade?

netcan 17y ago

Yes I am. Be uncharitable. I think it's all a matter of degrees. If the "right" policy offends people's religious ideas, nationalism, instinctive irrationality's, or whatever else, this might have consequences that outweigh the benefits of this policy. People being irrational can do damage. An obvious example is civil unrest which is often a good reason not to implement liberal/libertarian policies in many places.

houseabsolute 17y ago
> An obvious example is civil unrest which is often a good reason not to implement liberal/libertarian policies in many places. It's only a good reason because there are other good reasons to implement those policies too. Civil unrest would not be a good reason to begin beheading petty criminals, no matter how scared people were of being pick-pocketed. I'll give it to you that it is a matter of degrees, but the amount of fear that would be required to outweigh even the smallest iota of real benefit would have to be enormous. If robot trucks saved just one life per year on average, it would be morally unacceptable to obstruct their implementation even if they induced the same amount of fear as all the fears of planes crashing and terrorist attacks.
- netcan 17y ago
  If Robot trucks saved 1 life per year, they would be killing people every week (assuming they replaced all trucks). Every week you would have reports about faulty software, potential hacks and such. It would be massive scares. There are lots of places where lives are lost because a certain narrative is something that the public can swallow. You could spend billions of virtually useless aviation security dollars to save many lives. How would the public react to 50 terrorism deaths, twice a decade?