4 ms·

I’m not able to read the cited reference at that link, so I’ll try to take the statement at face value. I could name or describe a number of systems right now

by snoman 3y ago

I’m not able to read the cited reference at that link, so I’ll try to take the statement at face value. I could name or describe a number of systems right now that have outcomes that we could all agree are contrary or misaligned with their purpose, so unless the author is equivocating things like “purpose”, or “system”, I don’t think your premise is well founded, nor do I think your conclusion has merit.

kelseyfrog 3y ago
The conclusion is that systems should not be judged deontologically, and instead should be judged consequentially. The point is that if you could describe systems that are contrary to their purpose and have negative outcomes, one is justified in referring to them as systems whose purpose is that negative outcome. Doing otherwise is arguing from conclusions.
- irjustin 3y ago
  > The purpose of a system is what it does[1]. > In this case, one of the purposes - there are others - of Meta is the sexual harassment of children. I disagree as well. It's too naive to say "the purpose of meta is sexual harassment of children". Purpose and result are not hard linkable in so many cases. An obtuse example is a kitchen knife. So easy to say a knife's purpose is murder thus knives should "cease-operations".
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    But reread what I wrote. One of the purposes. Please, if you're going to argue, argue with what I wrote.
    - irjustin 3y ago
      It's too naive to say "*one of* the purpose of meta is sexual harassment of children". So easy to say *one of* a knife's purpose is murder thus knives should "cease-operations". ---- I did what you asked, but fail to see how that changes anything. Please if you're going to ask me to change something, have that change be meaningful.
      - kelseyfrog 3y ago
        It's naive not to. Believing that Facebook's purpose is what it intends to do is like believing that North Korea is a democratic people's republic. I can rephrase it in terms of intentionality if you wish: Meta has a choice every day to exist or not and the not. When choice to exist results in the sexual harassment of children then transitively Meta is choosing that consequence. To address your knife analogy, a knife alone is not a system. A knife plus a human plus another human being stabbed by the knife is. In that scenario, the person creating the system, the knife-wielder, should(like Meta), choose to dissolve the system. I think, at least for the knife+human+human stabbing system, that's quite easy to agree with.

by snoman 3y ago

kelseyfrog 3y ago

The conclusion is that systems should not be judged deontologically, and instead should be judged consequentially. The point is that if you could describe systems that are contrary to their purpose and have negative outcomes, one is justified in referring to them as systems whose purpose is that negative outcome. Doing otherwise is arguing from conclusions.

irjustin 3y ago
> The purpose of a system is what it does[1]. > In this case, one of the purposes - there are others - of Meta is the sexual harassment of children. I disagree as well. It's too naive to say "the purpose of meta is sexual harassment of children". Purpose and result are not hard linkable in so many cases. An obtuse example is a kitchen knife. So easy to say a knife's purpose is murder thus knives should "cease-operations".
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  But reread what I wrote. One of the purposes. Please, if you're going to argue, argue with what I wrote.
  - irjustin 3y ago
    It's too naive to say "*one of* the purpose of meta is sexual harassment of children". So easy to say *one of* a knife's purpose is murder thus knives should "cease-operations". ---- I did what you asked, but fail to see how that changes anything. Please if you're going to ask me to change something, have that change be meaningful.
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      It's naive not to. Believing that Facebook's purpose is what it intends to do is like believing that North Korea is a democratic people's republic. I can rephrase it in terms of intentionality if you wish: Meta has a choice every day to exist or not and the not. When choice to exist results in the sexual harassment of children then transitively Meta is choosing that consequence. To address your knife analogy, a knife alone is not a system. A knife plus a human plus another human being stabbed by the knife is. In that scenario, the person creating the system, the knife-wielder, should(like Meta), choose to dissolve the system. I think, at least for the knife+human+human stabbing system, that's quite easy to agree with.