Violence is not a way of getting where you want to go, only more quickly. Its existence changes your destination. If you use it, you had better be prepared to find yourself in the kind of place it takes you to.
If you use it, you had better be prepared to find yourself in the kind of place it takes you to.
Including such destinations as “Not being the unwilling sex toy of the big bald guy while in prison”. Although if you also don’t use ‘fraud’ you may find yourself not in jail in the first place—but it’s not always so simple. It also leads you to the destination “still having your food, possessions, dignity and social status in your schoolyard despite having no control of whether you wish to be subject to that environment”.
I didn’t read the quote as a blanket opposition to violence. It’s a warning about one thing to consider before you choose violence.
I also didn’t read the quote as only being about violence. It also makes a more general point about means and ends. When you’re considering an action in pursuit of a goal, you should consider the action in its own right and try to predict where it is likely to lead. Don’t settle on an action just because it seems to fit with the goal. This is especially relevant when you consider using violence, coercion, manipulation, or dishonesty for a noble purpose, but it also applies more generally.
This is confusing. Does your use of violence change your intended destination, or does it just exert certain optimization pressures on future world-states, as do all of your other actions?
Read the (long) linked-to article from which the quote stems. Basically the point is that using violence to achieve a goal teaches the people involved that violence is an effective, legitimate way to achieve goals—and at some later point they will invariably have conflicting goals.
I’m not sure there’s a useful distinction between those two options. Your future selves are part of the future world-states that it’s exerting pressure on, and not exempt from that pressure.
-hilzoy
Including such destinations as “Not being the unwilling sex toy of the big bald guy while in prison”. Although if you also don’t use ‘fraud’ you may find yourself not in jail in the first place—but it’s not always so simple. It also leads you to the destination “still having your food, possessions, dignity and social status in your schoolyard despite having no control of whether you wish to be subject to that environment”.
I didn’t read the quote as a blanket opposition to violence. It’s a warning about one thing to consider before you choose violence.
I also didn’t read the quote as only being about violence. It also makes a more general point about means and ends. When you’re considering an action in pursuit of a goal, you should consider the action in its own right and try to predict where it is likely to lead. Don’t settle on an action just because it seems to fit with the goal. This is especially relevant when you consider using violence, coercion, manipulation, or dishonesty for a noble purpose, but it also applies more generally.
Of course, sometimes one is prepared to find yourself in the kind of place it takes you to. The quote seems to already acknowledge this possibility.
It does, hence allowing for me to phrase the counterpoint within the quote’s own framework.
This is confusing. Does your use of violence change your intended destination, or does it just exert certain optimization pressures on future world-states, as do all of your other actions?
Read the (long) linked-to article from which the quote stems. Basically the point is that using violence to achieve a goal teaches the people involved that violence is an effective, legitimate way to achieve goals—and at some later point they will invariably have conflicting goals.
See also: Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I’m not sure there’s a useful distinction between those two options. Your future selves are part of the future world-states that it’s exerting pressure on, and not exempt from that pressure.
That lesson is pretty frequently homeschooled, sad to say.