From 876bbe48c65779cc05d8d7c813145093d6c75320 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: muflax Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:00:54 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] editing --- content_blog/morality/trolling.mkd | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/content_blog/morality/trolling.mkd b/content_blog/morality/trolling.mkd index 9f5698d..8a423c1 100644 --- a/content_blog/morality/trolling.mkd +++ b/content_blog/morality/trolling.mkd @@ -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.