muflax/muflax65ngodyewp.onion
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/fmap/muflax65ngodyewp.onion synced 2024-06-29 10:36:48 +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! 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!"). 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. 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. [^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]! 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. 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.