3 ms·
It really isn't like the thing you've mentioned at all. Perhaps a different analogy?
by knieveltech 9y ago
It really isn't like the thing you've mentioned at all. Perhaps a different analogy?
- SilasX 9y agoIt very much is, and I'd be happy to spell out the analogy. "It will never be necessary to torture for life-saving information, because I have perfect certainty that no information can be obtained that way, so I don't need a moral philosophy that appropriately weighs torture against loss of life." "It will never be necessary to levy taxes to pay for public goods, because I have perfect certainty that no asteroid will ever head toward the earth, so I don't need a moral philosophy that weights taxation against unprotected asteroid strikes."
- random023987 9y agoI think you meant: > It will never be necessary to levy taxes to pay for asteroid defense, because I have perfect certainty that no asteroid will ever head toward the earth, so I don't need a moral philosophy that weights taxation against unprotected asteroid strikes. You can't generalize to an argument against all public spending.
- SilasX 9y agoThat's the point: the anti-taxer's error is to so tenuously double down on believing they can explain away any public goods problem by saying it doesn't happen in practice. Asteroid defense is just the most extreme example. It is a similar error to double down so hard on torture never being able to elicit truthful, reliable information.