3 ms·

>I haven't censored anyone or shut down any argument by saying this You haven't shut down any argument by saying "anyone who works on this is a bad person"? S

>I haven't censored anyone or shut down any argument by saying this You haven't shut down any argument by saying "anyone who works on this is a bad person"? Seriously? I happen to think the exact opposite: life extension is probably one of the most noble things we could possibly be working on. Imagine if Einstein were still alive. We never learn from history, maybe because the people who lived it are all dead now. But in your mind, thinking this way probably makes me unethical (i.e. bad)! It's no problem when we're both two blobs of text on a forum, but I certainly wouldn't want you to be a boss or someone I was forced to interact with on a regular basis. And if enough people behave as radical as you are they will likely want to go beyond simply labelling people (e.g. see all the "hate crime" talk).

cjbprime 9y ago
It is fine that you think the opposite and I'd be happy to keep talking about it. You're probably overestimating how much it means (to me) for me to regard someone as unethical. I don't see how I can stop extrapolating from "action X is unethical because the expected consequences look like bad ones" to "this person who dearly wants to bring about action X is behaving unethically". I simply don't see them as being meaningfully different statements.
- alien_at_work 9y ago
  First of all, it's not you specifically. On a forum it never is. When we post here we represent a certain portion of the population. And things like censorship have proven to be very dangerous so we have to be careful. In your second paragraph you've deviated from what I'm talking about (perhaps I was responding to the wrong person? EDIT: I didn't). "Person X is behaving unethically" is perfectly fine. "This person is an unethical person because they engage in action X" is where I draw the line (asuming action X is controversial and not very clearly evil like first degree murder) because it assigns a trait to someone by which they will be judged by their peers. EDIT: Actually no: >people dedicating their lives to it today are unethical people. You said that. So your revised statement is moving the goal posts.

cjbprime 9y ago

It is fine that you think the opposite and I'd be happy to keep talking about it. You're probably overestimating how much it means (to me) for me to regard someone as unethical. I don't see how I can stop extrapolating from "action X is unethical because the expected consequences look like bad ones" to "this person who dearly wants to bring about action X is behaving unethically". I simply don't see them as being meaningfully different statements.

alien_at_work 9y ago
First of all, it's not you specifically. On a forum it never is. When we post here we represent a certain portion of the population. And things like censorship have proven to be very dangerous so we have to be careful. In your second paragraph you've deviated from what I'm talking about (perhaps I was responding to the wrong person? EDIT: I didn't). "Person X is behaving unethically" is perfectly fine. "This person is an unethical person because they engage in action X" is where I draw the line (asuming action X is controversial and not very clearly evil like first degree murder) because it assigns a trait to someone by which they will be judged by their peers. EDIT: Actually no: >people dedicating their lives to it today are unethical people. You said that. So your revised statement is moving the goal posts.