Here’s two more: • whether a person is helpful or harmful is so contextual that it says more about the setting than the person • trying to guess the eventual help/harm of a bold move is exhausting even when possible
-
-
Prikaži ovu nitHvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
I might disagree with you on this, or at least suggest that there is a stance within helpful/harmful pragmatism that can transcend what you proposed here. For example, by asking: “Am I a helpful or harmful agent of beauty/truth/love/etc?”
-
Your follow-up points are well-taken. The helpful/harmful frame isn’t one the generates certainty... in fact it requires constant openness to the possibility of being mistaken, and a heuristic for judging that. I consider that a strength rather than a weakness of the frame.
- Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
...no? I constantly get validation from being helpful to friends
-
Siberian Fox, psychologically normal median human,,,,
- Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
Tweet je nedostupan.
-
-
Perhaps your soul needs to be crushed and reformed
-
this sounds, like, violent
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Most utilitarianists probably haven't read the reductio ad absurdum of consequentialism in the Chinese horse farmer story. This story is an integral part of self-improvement, which seems to attract different people than does outside systems-improvement...
-
Most consequentialist a I know understand chaos. The best consequentialist action has highest utility **given information available to the agent.** No matter how smart they were the horse farmer wouldn't assign high probability to that outcome
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.