Eco-terrorism, animal rights terrorism, educational terrorism (!), and many other forms of terrorism are morally justified and should be practiced by advocates of those causes.
Ah yes, the old “let’s bomb DeepMind” approach to AI safety.
I hope it goes without saying that this is a heresy and not something I actually believe. A recent article in the Journal of Controversial Ideas makes the case for animal-rights terrorism.
“There is widespread agreement that coercive force may be used to prevent people from seriously and wrongfully harming others. But what about when those others are non-human animals? Some militant animal rights activists endorse the use of violent coercion against those who would otherwise harm animals. In the philosophical literature on animal ethics, however, theirs is a stance that enjoys little direct support. I contend that such coercion is nevertheless prima facie morally permissible.”
I hope it goes without saying that this is a heresy and not something I actually believe.
Oh, that was not transparent to me. After reading this sentence I interpret the post as “here are 20 thoughts you are not allowed to think”, but previously I had more probability mass on “these are 20 ideas that I believe are true and that are heretical in nature”.
Same for me. I was quite undecided if the author really hold all 20 beliefs or not. I switched to “probably just a list of made-up thoughts not really endorsed by the author” mainly because I considered believing in heresy 12 and 16 at the same time quite contradictory.
Ah yes, the old “let’s bomb DeepMind” approach to AI safety.
Boo
(I’m booing all the terrorisms)
I hope it goes without saying that this is a heresy and not something I actually believe. A recent article in the Journal of Controversial Ideas makes the case for animal-rights terrorism.
“There is widespread agreement that coercive force may be used to prevent people from seriously and wrongfully harming others. But what about when those others are non-human animals? Some militant animal rights activists endorse the use of violent coercion against those who would otherwise harm animals. In the philosophical literature on animal ethics, however, theirs is a stance that enjoys little direct support. I contend that such coercion is nevertheless prima facie morally permissible.”
Oh, that was not transparent to me. After reading this sentence I interpret the post as “here are 20 thoughts you are not allowed to think”, but previously I had more probability mass on “these are 20 ideas that I believe are true and that are heretical in nature”.
Same for me. I was quite undecided if the author really hold all 20 beliefs or not. I switched to “probably just a list of made-up thoughts not really endorsed by the author” mainly because I considered believing in heresy 12 and 16 at the same time quite contradictory.
I second this, I sincerely thought these were thoughts you held.