4 ms·

> Would you then cede your decision making to them if it were demonstrably better? There are, and I use them constantly in the form of domain experts. So does

> Would you then cede your decision making to them if it were demonstrably better? There are, and I use them constantly in the form of domain experts. So does everyone. For example, I would never assume a plumber is wrong and I am right about pipes, though I may get a 2nd opinion. > Would you argue that you should be free to make measurably worse or less optimized decisions for yourself - by virtue of the value of you being un-baised was more important than you making a better decision? Yes, and this is the case in most areas. There is nothing preventing me from representing myself in court, for example. I think this would be analogous to Youtube adding content filters to block different categories of potentially undesirable content, including their filter for misinformation, and allowing the user to opt in or out. If Youtube did this I would not object, even it the default was to turn the filters on.

AndrewKemendo 6y ago
Should you be free to make (acknowledged) sub-optimal decisions for yourself that adversely affect others? Anticipating the "no - if it's illegal" argument, how would that be the philosophically consistent with freedom to choose free from having a group of people who are "smarter and better" choose for you? This is the challenge of externalities and market pricing.
- totony 6y ago
  >Should you be free to make (acknowledged) sub-optimal decisions for yourself that adversely affect others? Yes, this is what personal freedom is about. Optimal-ness of decisions does not matter. There are some things we agreed as a society are not only suboptimal, but harmful enough to warrant restricting some of that freedom. Note the enough, we hold freedom above (or at least used to hold it) some consequences that may result from its existance. Ideally this standard of enough should be pretty high. The argument against censorship is that censoring what people discuss is harmful to both that freedpm (fundamental - according to how we base our society) and to society as a whole, seeding dissent from these groups that are singled out. EDIT: I also think your assumption is wrong in that it is dubious if there are people whose opinion is better. Just look at science's history, where most of the (now recognized) big breakthroughs were first seen as absolute stupidity from the established experts. >Anticipating the "no - if it's illegal" argument, how would that be the philosophically consistent with freedom to choose free from having a group of people who are "smarter and better" choose for you? As for this, society is hardly philosophically consistent. At some point a concensus has to be reached. Here practicality forces us to abandon philosphical perfection in order to preserve social order.
  - AndrewKemendo 6y ago
    >Yes, this is what personal freedom is about. To be clear you're claiming that the virtue of personal freedom is making choices that have adverse affects on others? I'm not familiar with that being a part of any philosophy.
    - totony 6y ago
      >To be clear you're claiming that the virtue of personal freedom is making choices that have adverse affects on others Yes, I am saying personal freedom allows for potential adverse side effects. (Edit: Or why would you be allowed to drive a car, own a gun, insult someone?)
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        Well we have some limits on those personal freedoms, since while you can own a gun you can't shoot me. So who decides?
- travisoneill1 6y ago
  I would say no if: - the effect is scientifically provable and quantifiable - the effect is tangible & physical (not emotional harm) - banning it doesn't violate fundamental/constitutional rights So an example where I would say you should not be free to make the sub-optimal decision would be smoking in indoor public spaces.
lambdatronics 6y ago
> I would never assume a plumber is wrong and I am right about pipes Hahah, great example. I want an explanation of everything -- from plumbers to doctors. I wouldn't start out with the assumption I'm right and they are wrong, but how do I tell a trustworthy one from an untrustworthy one? I got ripped off by an auto shop who sold me a bunch of pointless work because they were having a slow week -- it's not an academic question.

AndrewKemendo 6y ago

Should you be free to make (acknowledged) sub-optimal decisions for yourself that adversely affect others? Anticipating the "no - if it's illegal" argument, how would that be the philosophically consistent with freedom to choose free from having a group of people who are "smarter and better" choose for you? This is the challenge of externalities and market pricing.

totony 6y ago
>Should you be free to make (acknowledged) sub-optimal decisions for yourself that adversely affect others? Yes, this is what personal freedom is about. Optimal-ness of decisions does not matter. There are some things we agreed as a society are not only suboptimal, but harmful enough to warrant restricting some of that freedom. Note the enough, we hold freedom above (or at least used to hold it) some consequences that may result from its existance. Ideally this standard of enough should be pretty high. The argument against censorship is that censoring what people discuss is harmful to both that freedpm (fundamental - according to how we base our society) and to society as a whole, seeding dissent from these groups that are singled out. EDIT: I also think your assumption is wrong in that it is dubious if there are people whose opinion is better. Just look at science's history, where most of the (now recognized) big breakthroughs were first seen as absolute stupidity from the established experts. >Anticipating the "no - if it's illegal" argument, how would that be the philosophically consistent with freedom to choose free from having a group of people who are "smarter and better" choose for you? As for this, society is hardly philosophically consistent. At some point a concensus has to be reached. Here practicality forces us to abandon philosphical perfection in order to preserve social order.
- AndrewKemendo 6y ago
  >Yes, this is what personal freedom is about. To be clear you're claiming that the virtue of personal freedom is making choices that have adverse affects on others? I'm not familiar with that being a part of any philosophy.
  - totony 6y ago
    >To be clear you're claiming that the virtue of personal freedom is making choices that have adverse affects on others Yes, I am saying personal freedom allows for potential adverse side effects. (Edit: Or why would you be allowed to drive a car, own a gun, insult someone?)
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Well we have some limits on those personal freedoms, since while you can own a gun you can't shoot me. So who decides?
travisoneill1 6y ago
I would say no if: - the effect is scientifically provable and quantifiable - the effect is tangible & physical (not emotional harm) - banning it doesn't violate fundamental/constitutional rights So an example where I would say you should not be free to make the sub-optimal decision would be smoking in indoor public spaces.

lambdatronics 6y ago

> I would never assume a plumber is wrong and I am right about pipes Hahah, great example. I want an explanation of everything -- from plumbers to doctors. I wouldn't start out with the assumption I'm right and they are wrong, but how do I tell a trustworthy one from an untrustworthy one? I got ripped off by an auto shop who sold me a bunch of pointless work because they were having a slow week -- it's not an academic question.