3 ms·

For someone whose main preaching is a religion of caution and skepticism, you speak with a lot of moral certainty. Why should holding a very common view (which

For someone whose main preaching is a religion of caution and skepticism, you speak with a lot of moral certainty. Why should holding a very common view (which probably not a lot of thought went into) make a person a "horrible human being"? I even allow that some of the people that disagree with us might have good reasons for doing so. Should I excise a person from the company of "the good guys" because one of his family members went through a horrible experience with illegal drugs? Or should I condemn him because he lives in a community where nearly everyone thinks drugs should be illegal and he lacks the two-plus sigma IQ often needed to disagree with the whole of society? By such standards, the world is full of monsters. While I stop short of endorsing full-fledged moral relativism, I do think a little humility in judging the moral worth of others is a (rare) virtue. This is especially true on the interwebs, where separating the sheep from the goats is a favorite pastime of each little ego.

uriel 17y ago
Anyone that supports drug prohibition is either extremely ignorant, extremely stupid, or extremely evil, or some combination of thereof. A brief look at any history book covering alcohol prohibition should be more than enough to convince any reasonable and honest person that drug legalization is a moral imperative.
- jacoblyles 17y ago
  Labeling those who disagree with you as "evil" and "stupid" is usually a poor way of convincing them to see things your way, and in general is a poor way of relating to your fellow human beings. This is a sentiment that is usually agreed to in the abstract, but is often shunned in practice. But don't worry, you're really, really right and you can be 100% sure of that, so it's okay if we jettison the trappings of civilized discourse.
Eliezer 17y ago
Okay, you're right. I amend my statement to read that people who support drug criminalization are either horrible human beings, or stupid human beings who haven't spent much time thinking about who their righteous opinions might hurt in real life, and who as voters are directly partially responsible for the said pain. Is that an excuse? I suppose it's better than causing the pain on purpose.
- JulianMorrison 17y ago
  Still too condemning. The problem is the huge inferential gap between the facts on the ground, and people who don't know, don't know that they don't know, have been taught that they do know, have been taught to actively resist learning otherwise, and who are constantly reinforced by most everyone with whom they are in close personal or cultural contact.
- jacoblyles 17y ago
  I would hope that someone in your position of authority would be less willing to reinforce the uncivil and dangerous group-think that pervades our society. Viewing those that disagree with you as evil or stupid is the strongest symptom of thought-ossification. The act of "condemning the other" can summon powerful forces to your side. But in the long run it is harmful. We would be better off if people were less comfortable using it as a tactic. Seeing Eliezer Yukodsky use it himself does not set a good example. Hell, I'm on your side on the particular issue at hand. It just turns my stomach to see people use such cheap rhetorical tactics, even if I agree with them. Especially if I agree with them.

uriel 17y ago

Anyone that supports drug prohibition is either extremely ignorant, extremely stupid, or extremely evil, or some combination of thereof. A brief look at any history book covering alcohol prohibition should be more than enough to convince any reasonable and honest person that drug legalization is a moral imperative.

jacoblyles 17y ago
Labeling those who disagree with you as "evil" and "stupid" is usually a poor way of convincing them to see things your way, and in general is a poor way of relating to your fellow human beings. This is a sentiment that is usually agreed to in the abstract, but is often shunned in practice. But don't worry, you're really, really right and you can be 100% sure of that, so it's okay if we jettison the trappings of civilized discourse.

Eliezer 17y ago

Okay, you're right. I amend my statement to read that people who support drug criminalization are either horrible human beings, or stupid human beings who haven't spent much time thinking about who their righteous opinions might hurt in real life, and who as voters are directly partially responsible for the said pain. Is that an excuse? I suppose it's better than causing the pain on purpose.

JulianMorrison 17y ago
Still too condemning. The problem is the huge inferential gap between the facts on the ground, and people who don't know, don't know that they don't know, have been taught that they do know, have been taught to actively resist learning otherwise, and who are constantly reinforced by most everyone with whom they are in close personal or cultural contact.
jacoblyles 17y ago
I would hope that someone in your position of authority would be less willing to reinforce the uncivil and dangerous group-think that pervades our society. Viewing those that disagree with you as evil or stupid is the strongest symptom of thought-ossification. The act of "condemning the other" can summon powerful forces to your side. But in the long run it is harmful. We would be better off if people were less comfortable using it as a tactic. Seeing Eliezer Yukodsky use it himself does not set a good example. Hell, I'm on your side on the particular issue at hand. It just turns my stomach to see people use such cheap rhetorical tactics, even if I agree with them. Especially if I agree with them.