4 ms·

Yeah, I really doubt that reading any given book has an impact morality other than inducing a sort of selection effect (i.e. people who are not interested in th

Yeah, I really doubt that reading any given book has an impact morality other than inducing a sort of selection effect (i.e. people who are not interested in the environment won't read The Silent Spring unless compelled to do so in high school). I'm assuming by your concurrence with the comment above you and your association of that comment with "blindspots of morality" that you believe advertising is immoral. Forgive me if this is mistaken, but hopefully it's clear at least how I came by this impression. I am here to tell you that a person can be a reader of Orwell, or Mieville, or whoever, and still not agree with you on a position like the one you've implicitly espoused. You can have similar base principles as someone and come to very different moral conclusions based on a number of things, like access to different data or relatively subtle nuances in you take on some of those principles.

Dylan16807 6y ago
Any given book? The comment wasn't talking about particular books. Or even necessarily books at all.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  "reading" and "the humanities" basically implies books or plays. Sorry if you don't see it what way, but I do.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    "anything that isn't 538 or a tech blog" implies more than that to me, but I'd rather you focus on the other part of what I said. They're not asking for someone to read some particular books they like, but to go reading around and sampling the variety. Your criticism only really applies to the former.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      My presumption is the notion is that if people would read the correct things, their minds would be expanded in the correct direction and suddenly they too would see that advertising is wrong (or any other preferred moral position). But let's say you're right and the person's idea was that if people would just read enough they'd come to the correct conclusion. Either way, it is not correct. That's now how reading works. You can find someone with any moral perspective who is widely read. Being widely read unlikely implies any moral perspective besides as a proxy for affluence and education.

Dylan16807 6y ago

Any given book? The comment wasn't talking about particular books. Or even necessarily books at all.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
"reading" and "the humanities" basically implies books or plays. Sorry if you don't see it what way, but I do.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  "anything that isn't 538 or a tech blog" implies more than that to me, but I'd rather you focus on the other part of what I said. They're not asking for someone to read some particular books they like, but to go reading around and sampling the variety. Your criticism only really applies to the former.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    My presumption is the notion is that if people would read the correct things, their minds would be expanded in the correct direction and suddenly they too would see that advertising is wrong (or any other preferred moral position). But let's say you're right and the person's idea was that if people would just read enough they'd come to the correct conclusion. Either way, it is not correct. That's now how reading works. You can find someone with any moral perspective who is widely read. Being widely read unlikely implies any moral perspective besides as a proxy for affluence and education.