muflax/muflax65ngodyewp.onion
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/fmap/muflax65ngodyewp.onion synced 2024-06-26 10:26:48 +02:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

editing

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
muflax 2012-06-14 11:00:54 +02:00
parent 2c226c8392
commit 876bbe48c6
1 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

8
content_blog/morality/trolling.mkd
View file

@ -14,9 +14,9 @@ episteme: :believed
And I'm *appalled* by that suggestion! I'm not *rationalizing*! I have a complex meta-ethical set of axioms that has morally-neutral trolling as a derivable theorem!
I didn't start out with the conclusion here, I did proper meta-ethics and discovered it! I'm not *that* [biased][Es gibt Leute, die sehen das anders.].
I didn't start out with the conclusion here, I did proper meta-ethics and *discovered* it! I'm not *that* [biased][Es gibt Leute, die sehen das anders.].
(If you think I'm actually doing harm, tell me. I'm not deliberately trying to be a douche.)
(However, if you think I'm actually doing harm, tell me. I'm not deliberately trying to be a douche.)
Let's start with a simple definition - what's trolling? Trolling, [like crackpottery][Crackpot Theory], is arguing for positions that are not merely motivated by truth-seeking[^truth]. The major difference, however, is that a crackpot actually believes what they are saying, they just use an interestingness prior to select their beliefs. A troll is intentionally adjusting their beliefs for the specific argument, either in content ("lol bible says kill the gays") or strength ("I feel very strongly about this definition!").
@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ Similarly, morality is about *actions*. In rationality, you are presented with a
So just as rationality requires that there is always a difference in anticipation and that the set of anticipated events is never empty, so morality requires a difference in action and that the set of available moral actions is never empty.
This does not, of course, require that those actions be easy, pleasant, certain or otherwise nice. [Sophie's Choice][] is still allowed, but not [Calvinism][].
This does not, of course, require that those actions be easy, pleasant, certain or otherwise nice. [Sophie's Choice][] is still allowed, but not [Calvinism][Predestination].
[^actions]: Note, of course, that deliberately believing something *is* an action. Beliefs are not exempt from optimization. Don't be a rock.
@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ So it's clear that *being* trolled is morally neutral, but what about *actively*
Well, that depends on your intentions[^intentions]!
[^intentios]: I'd like to point out that locality automatically introduces the [Doctrine of Double Effect][].
[^intentions]: I'd like to point out that locality automatically introduces the [Doctrine of Double Effect][].
For one thing, it is not possible for your actions to ever *screw over* another agent in the moral sense. (It might still suck to be them, though.) However, *you* also can't be responsible for consequences you couldn't locally have predicted, or else you might unknowingly bring damnation upon a Cartesian Stalker that chose to kill itself should you ever eat chocolate ice cream, a clear violation of locality.