But some people will only ever defect, have no interest in cooperating. Some people have irreconcilable goals, such that no cooperation is possible. You can say those people aren’t “evil”, but that is what I choose to call people whose goals are destruction, pain, rape
-
-
Read a bit, like the same definition as in Asimov's "The Last Question" http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html … Also it's hard to go from moral principles such as that to something like "evil occurred at Rotherham"
-
Yeah it's similar! What makes that bridge of reasoning "hard"?
-
Maybe "hard" is not what you mean. Asking because the quoted character was crime lord in Bombay. While profiting off other things he banished the porn industry on moral principle. He likely would describe the Rotherham perpetrators as evil w/o difficulty.
-
there is no obvious logical argument
-
Rotherham was kind of complex. What's your take on Richard Ramirez?
-
I mostly don't see how to get from "universal complexity" to "human life and relations"
-
Something like: Humans are the highest expression of natural complexity, take that as good, so human life and relations should be maintained. Not saying it's precise, but it's good enough to recognize "degeneracy" like child sex abuse.
-
I don’t know if this works, since I could build Rube Goldberg machines of arbitrary complexity, more complex than any human, and then in this model, they would have more moral value than humans
- 11 more replies
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.