5 ms·

I would like to understand how my comment falls under the is/ought fallacy. > Is a person on the spectrum or with aspergers or with asthma more worthy of immed

I would like to understand how my comment falls under the is/ought fallacy. > Is a person on the spectrum or with aspergers or with asthma more worthy of immediate death alone on an island compared to a "typical" person? That is a nuanced question that I don't have an answer for. I would tend towards saying no though. > The decision you find easy, rational and ethical, is only so if you have one of a few particular views of human value and you hold it strongly/dogmatically and in your supreme surety have no scruples in executing that position on actual people I wrote my comment based on conventional societal views and under the assumption that all else equal, these are the rational choices. I probably tend to align to societal views on this topic, but my comment was not really supposed to be a personal take.

beebeepka 5y ago
I was willing to give you the benefit of doubt but hiding behind "societal views" and aligning yourself with what "rational" people might do is telling me you are not merely exploring the idea. I mean, it apparently is an easy choice since it's not your ass on the line
- ZephyrBlu 5y ago
  In what way am I hiding behind societal views? I've said that I tend to align with societal views, and my use of "rational" is in relation to what our society tends to value. > I mean, it apparently is an easy choice since it's not your ass on the line If you don't think it's an easy choice, I'd like to hear your reasoning for choosing a less intelligent/attractive/abled person given all else is equal in the desert island situation.