All of the munchkin ideas I can think of aren’t so much unlikely to work as hideously unethical. That fits with the classic munchkin, but it takes them off the table as far as I’m concerned. I’d rather not signal willingness to entertain immoral ideas, since there’s no disclaimer I could issue that would adequately signal the truth of my being against them.
Then something is wrong with the generator that your brain uses when trying to be unconventional. Try to figure out what and how to fix it, and tell me if you figure it out, as I have no idea how to do that.
Why do you say that? The low-hanging fruit of good ideas tends to get plucked, even the long shots - the primary exceptions are things that people refuse to do because they’re wrong.
How many rapes, for instance, are even an attempt to do the right thing? Not a whole lot! And if they’re not trying to be good, how likely is it to come out good by accident, given what we already know about what they did? Very unlikely!
Ah, looks like I was confused by “good” in “good ideas”. I read it as “effective”, good ideas are those which are instrumentally good and will allow you to get to your goal, whichever it may be, quickly and cheaply. But do you mean “good” as the opposite of wrong/evil?
Munchkin ideas are not about attempting to do the right thing. Munchkin ideas are about hacking the rules to gain an advantage, basically.
Very weakly. Strongly to those who quote-mine so badly they can’t finish the sentence, yes. There’s nothing I can do about them.
I was primarily concerned with the much stronger case at hand—if I were to entertain specific immoral ideas, rather than talking about some of my reasons for not talking about them in general.
the much stronger case at hand—if I were to entertain specific immoral ideas
You did :-) Let me quote you (emphasis mine):
“All of the munchkin ideas I can think of aren’t so much unlikely to work as hideously unethical”
Basically you already confessed that hideously unethical ideas came into your mind and they were in sufficiently specific form for you to recognize their unethicalness. The fact that you didn’t publish them on the ’net is secondary.
Note that this is not a call to raise a torches-and-pitchforks mob, but rather a reminder that you can’t think about something without thinking about it :-)
Having an idea is rather different from entertaining it, at least as I (and perhaps Luke as well) understand the connotations. I can certainly conceive of all manner of monstrous plans, but I do not share them because after assessing their morality, I decline to pursue them further. I do not look into how to implement them, because I do not want to implement them.
I suspect that Luke had a similar thought, acknowledging that while he may be able to think about a baby-powered reactor, for example, he does not want to draw up the plans for it, either for actual use or for the purpose of discussion here.
I actually have a fun hobby of dreaming about unethical-but-legal startup ideas. Then again, whether something is unethical depends on how you define your own ethics, or alternatively, invent some self-justifications.
Munchkin ideas are often unethical but legal. This is because a Munchkin is by definition a way of following the letter of the rules while violating unspoken convention. In some cases, ethics, in contrast to law, means precisely that one follows uncodified rules of behavior.
All of the munchkin ideas I can think of aren’t so much unlikely to work as hideously unethical. That fits with the classic munchkin, but it takes them off the table as far as I’m concerned. I’d rather not signal willingness to entertain immoral ideas, since there’s no disclaimer I could issue that would adequately signal the truth of my being against them.
Even if you wouldn’t do them, it’s no use to put unethical ideas at a place where other people might apply them.
That too.
Use a throwaway account?
Well, it’s too late now. If a new account shows up and posts hideously unethical suggestions, kinda obvious who it is.
Worse, anyone at all can now start a new account, post whatever horrid and disgusting ideas they want and everyone will think they are Luke’s.
That’s actually better, not worse, it gives plausible deniability.
Which is why I said it. So maybe he’ll actually post.
… and at the same time, maybe he won’t!
Then something is wrong with the generator that your brain uses when trying to be unconventional. Try to figure out what and how to fix it, and tell me if you figure it out, as I have no idea how to do that.
Why do you say that? The low-hanging fruit of good ideas tends to get plucked, even the long shots - the primary exceptions are things that people refuse to do because they’re wrong.
You can assume that, but I assure you it’s just not the case. We can debate the details some time in person if you’d like.
Since “people” clearly do things like wars, torture, rape, etc. etc. I do have to wonder at what are these good ideas that are even more wrong...
How many rapes, for instance, are even an attempt to do the right thing? Not a whole lot! And if they’re not trying to be good, how likely is it to come out good by accident, given what we already know about what they did? Very unlikely!
Ah, looks like I was confused by “good” in “good ideas”. I read it as “effective”, good ideas are those which are instrumentally good and will allow you to get to your goal, whichever it may be, quickly and cheaply. But do you mean “good” as the opposite of wrong/evil?
Munchkin ideas are not about attempting to do the right thing. Munchkin ideas are about hacking the rules to gain an advantage, basically.
You just did :-D
Very weakly. Strongly to those who quote-mine so badly they can’t finish the sentence, yes. There’s nothing I can do about them.
I was primarily concerned with the much stronger case at hand—if I were to entertain specific immoral ideas, rather than talking about some of my reasons for not talking about them in general.
You did :-) Let me quote you (emphasis mine):
“All of the munchkin ideas I can think of aren’t so much unlikely to work as hideously unethical”
Basically you already confessed that hideously unethical ideas came into your mind and they were in sufficiently specific form for you to recognize their unethicalness. The fact that you didn’t publish them on the ’net is secondary.
Note that this is not a call to raise a torches-and-pitchforks mob, but rather a reminder that you can’t think about something without thinking about it :-)
Having an idea is rather different from entertaining it, at least as I (and perhaps Luke as well) understand the connotations. I can certainly conceive of all manner of monstrous plans, but I do not share them because after assessing their morality, I decline to pursue them further. I do not look into how to implement them, because I do not want to implement them.
I suspect that Luke had a similar thought, acknowledging that while he may be able to think about a baby-powered reactor, for example, he does not want to draw up the plans for it, either for actual use or for the purpose of discussion here.
Yes.
I actually have a fun hobby of dreaming about unethical-but-legal startup ideas. Then again, whether something is unethical depends on how you define your own ethics, or alternatively, invent some self-justifications.
Munchkin ideas are often unethical but legal. This is because a Munchkin is by definition a way of following the letter of the rules while violating unspoken convention. In some cases, ethics, in contrast to law, means precisely that one follows uncodified rules of behavior.