One area people's intuitions seem very split on is whether it feels actively dangerous to have things that most people agree on but nobody is willing to say.
Show this thread
-
This may be a naive question, but can you elaborate on why the alternative would be worse? Is it because you fear that if the majority knows itself to be a majority, it will act in unethical ways?
Hard to elaborate without giving object level details but often it has the structure: X: (true, privately accepted, publicly rejected) X => Y: (false, privately and publicly accepted) Where X is morally fine but Y is morally bad, and (X => Y) is hard to shift.
-
-
Got it, thanks. In that case, the best-of-both-worlds option would be clearing the way for acceptance of X by attacking the belief that X => Y, either by trying to change people's minds directly, or by changing the world so that fewer people will be drawn to it.
-
Yep, I agree!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.