3 ms·

alright, a non-negligible subset of these are suicide by cop attempts. thats just as inconsiderate of their feelings as it would be of a loved ones feelings, ex

alright, a non-negligible subset of these are suicide by cop attempts. thats just as inconsiderate of their feelings as it would be of a loved ones feelings, except now there is an additional person potentially screwed up just because the dead person believed a myth about their life insurance.

KMag 5y ago
> ... an additional person potentially screwed up just because the dead person believed a myth ... The police and the loved ones will presumably both be emotionally better off if the person believes the myth, because the myth reduces suicide rates. We are in agreement that the myth reduces suicide rates... right? Or are we talking right past each other here? So, looking at just the cases at the margin where the difference is believing the myth or not believing the myth, the statements would be "because a dead person didn't believe the myth" or "because the myth tricked someone into living". We're talking about increased or decreased probabilities, but pushing the probabilistic argument to the extreme, there are no dead people who believe the myth (at the margin where the myth is the deciding factor). There are lots of good arguments against prolonging the myth, but sparing the feelings of police and loved ones falls on the side of prolonging the myth.
- vmception 5y ago
  I don't know. If we are including suicide by cop and suicide attempts by cop, I think this isn't reducing suicide rates and isn't reducing the trauma some cops encounter (for the cops that care). I don't know how it compares to all suicides, suicide attempts, or suicides that didn't happen. If you have those numbers, be my guest. I'll still be for reducing ignorance either way, at best I might find it good parlor talk to repeat the concession about how the myth tricks people into living.
  - KMag 5y ago
    Now, that's the beginning of a good argument! If I'm arguing that the noble lie is morally good (I didn't say as much, but I think it's fair to read my statements as moral agreement), presumably I'm arguing in favor of a teleological moral system. Does the utility of the reduced suicide outweigh the utility of the ignorance and mistrust created by the lie? I'd concede that a noble lie is difficult to justify in other moral systems. If I'm going to convince you that a noble lie is morally good, I need to both convince you that (1) a teleological moral system is superior to the alternatives and (2) that the noble lie has net positive utility. The first is very difficult to argue if we disagree, so I shouldn't even start if I can't provide good evidence that the second is true in practice. HWR_14 makes some strong arguments that the utility is a net negative. I think I've been convinced by you and HWR_14.

KMag 5y ago

> ... an additional person potentially screwed up just because the dead person believed a myth ... The police and the loved ones will presumably both be emotionally better off if the person believes the myth, because the myth reduces suicide rates. We are in agreement that the myth reduces suicide rates... right? Or are we talking right past each other here? So, looking at just the cases at the margin where the difference is believing the myth or not believing the myth, the statements would be "because a dead person didn't believe the myth" or "because the myth tricked someone into living". We're talking about increased or decreased probabilities, but pushing the probabilistic argument to the extreme, there are no dead people who believe the myth (at the margin where the myth is the deciding factor). There are lots of good arguments against prolonging the myth, but sparing the feelings of police and loved ones falls on the side of prolonging the myth.

vmception 5y ago
I don't know. If we are including suicide by cop and suicide attempts by cop, I think this isn't reducing suicide rates and isn't reducing the trauma some cops encounter (for the cops that care). I don't know how it compares to all suicides, suicide attempts, or suicides that didn't happen. If you have those numbers, be my guest. I'll still be for reducing ignorance either way, at best I might find it good parlor talk to repeat the concession about how the myth tricks people into living.
- KMag 5y ago
  Now, that's the beginning of a good argument! If I'm arguing that the noble lie is morally good (I didn't say as much, but I think it's fair to read my statements as moral agreement), presumably I'm arguing in favor of a teleological moral system. Does the utility of the reduced suicide outweigh the utility of the ignorance and mistrust created by the lie? I'd concede that a noble lie is difficult to justify in other moral systems. If I'm going to convince you that a noble lie is morally good, I need to both convince you that (1) a teleological moral system is superior to the alternatives and (2) that the noble lie has net positive utility. The first is very difficult to argue if we disagree, so I shouldn't even start if I can't provide good evidence that the second is true in practice. HWR_14 makes some strong arguments that the utility is a net negative. I think I've been convinced by you and HWR_14.