I think there is some value in exploring the philosophical foundations of ethics, and LessWrong culture is often up for that sort of thing. But, it’s worth saying explicitly: the taboo against violence is correct, and has strong arguments for it from a wide variety of angles. People who think their case is an exception are nearly always wrong, and nearly always make things worse.
(This does not include things that could be construed as violence but only if you stretch the definition, like supporting regulation through normal legal channels, or aggressive criticism, or lawsuits. I think those things are not taboo and would support some of them.)
Here’s my objection to this: unless ethics are founded on belief in a deity, they must step from humanity. So an action that can wipe out humanity makes any discussion of ethics moot; the point is, if you don’t sanction violence to prevent human extinction, when do you ever sanction it? (And I don’t think it’s stretching the definition to suggest that law requires violence).
(This does not include things that could be construed as violence but only if you stretch the definition, like supporting regulation through normal legal channels, or aggressive criticism, or lawsuits. I think those things are not taboo and would support some of them.)
Can you clarify on this? I think most people would agree that lawsuits do count as explicitly sanctioned violence beyond some low threshold, especially in a loser-pays jurisdiction. As in that’s the intended purpose of the idea, to let the victor rely on the state’s monopoly on violence instead of their private means.
You don’t become generally viewed by society as a defector when you file a lawsuit. Private violence defines you in that way, and thus marks you as an enemy of ethical cooperators, which is unlikely to be a good long term strategy.
Someone or some group with objectionable moral/ethical/social positions, seen by a substantial fraction of society, can nonetheless win lawsuits and rely on the state’s violent means for enforcement of the awards.
e.g. a major oil company winning a lawsuit against activists, forcing environmental degradation of some degree.
or vice versa,
e.g. nudist lifestyle and porn activists winning lawsuits against widely supported restrictions on virtual child porn, forcing a huge expansion in the effective grey area of child porn.
The losing side being punished may even be the more efficient, effective, engaged, etc., ‘ethical cooperators’ in relative comparison, and yet they nonetheless receive the violence without any noticeable change in public sentiment regarding the judiciary.
I think there is some value in exploring the philosophical foundations of ethics, and LessWrong culture is often up for that sort of thing. But, it’s worth saying explicitly: the taboo against violence is correct, and has strong arguments for it from a wide variety of angles. People who think their case is an exception are nearly always wrong, and nearly always make things worse.
(This does not include things that could be construed as violence but only if you stretch the definition, like supporting regulation through normal legal channels, or aggressive criticism, or lawsuits. I think those things are not taboo and would support some of them.)
Here’s my objection to this: unless ethics are founded on belief in a deity, they must step from humanity. So an action that can wipe out humanity makes any discussion of ethics moot; the point is, if you don’t sanction violence to prevent human extinction, when do you ever sanction it? (And I don’t think it’s stretching the definition to suggest that law requires violence).
Can you clarify on this? I think most people would agree that lawsuits do count as explicitly sanctioned violence beyond some low threshold, especially in a loser-pays jurisdiction. As in that’s the intended purpose of the idea, to let the victor rely on the state’s monopoly on violence instead of their private means.
You don’t become generally viewed by society as a defector when you file a lawsuit. Private violence defines you in that way, and thus marks you as an enemy of ethical cooperators, which is unlikely to be a good long term strategy.
Someone or some group with objectionable moral/ethical/social positions, seen by a substantial fraction of society, can nonetheless win lawsuits and rely on the state’s violent means for enforcement of the awards.
e.g. a major oil company winning a lawsuit against activists, forcing environmental degradation of some degree.
or vice versa,
e.g. nudist lifestyle and porn activists winning lawsuits against widely supported restrictions on virtual child porn, forcing a huge expansion in the effective grey area of child porn.
The losing side being punished may even be the more efficient, effective, engaged, etc., ‘ethical cooperators’ in relative comparison, and yet they nonetheless receive the violence without any noticeable change in public sentiment regarding the judiciary.