this echoes the fact that many people lie at the intersection of "I'd never kill a chicken, it's a living thing" and "a 6 month fetus is some cells" (yes, there are nuanced takes where a chicken is tasty for 15 minutes but an abortion can spare someone decades of obligation)
-
-
I do not believe, but can understand / have respect for the argument that the fetus slowly transitions from 0 moral worth to full moral worth I will defend "no abortions on day 2" intellectually, but have no emotional angst at idea of RU-486 at that point
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
I have zero tolerance for "nuh uh, it's not <BAD THING> ... because. Now shut up." I respect a lot "yes, it is bad thing, let's grapple with it..." problem is, there's a mode that apes that second one: "I want to do X, so, uh, I've 'grappled with it'...and now I get to! WOO!"
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
The Repugnant Conclusion problem is basically an arithmetic error. I should write up my take on this but never will.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
I'd love to read it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Ultracompressed version: Parfit's steps of 'seems no worse than'/'seems better than' etc. just demonstrate inconsistencies in the idea of 'seeming' without a situated 'seemer', ie a 'for who?'
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
And in particular, I've never seen anyone demonstrate that there's any meaningful moral commensurability between worldstates in which person X exists, and worldstates in which X doesn't. (This is also the problem with Benatar's antinatalism argument.)
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.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.