You favor lying to people to scam money out of them because it would be inconvenient for your education plans to not be able to scam money out of them?
You present a compelling argument that “scamming money out of people because it would be inconvenient not to” can be an entirely ethical and appropriate course of action.
Lumping a particular scenario already analysed on merit seems reasonable into a despised reference class serves to change the reference class, not the instance.
Really, where? Or does “analysed on merit” now mean asserted?
Extensively in the thread, with people having various opinions both regarding effectiveness and ethical appropriateness. The conversation seems to have been of an acceptable quality. Also, presumably, by the people people thought and analysed their intuitions before making the assertions. This isn’t me claiming here that whatever position people have is necessarily ‘right’—people disagreed after all. I am just suggesting that the reference class labelling is rather irrelevant when screened off by the specific details already.
By way of explanation by anecdote I have fond memories of hearing the observation “You make a compelling argument for eating babies” in response to a similar pattern. ie. “A is in X. X is evil therefore A is evil.” --> “A is in X. A isn’t evil therefore not all X are evil.”
You present a compelling argument that “scamming money out of people because it would be inconvenient not to” can be an entirely ethical and appropriate course of action.
Lumping a particular scenario already analysed on merit seems reasonable into a despised reference class serves to change the reference class, not the instance.
Really, where? Or does “analysed on merit” now mean asserted?
Extensively in the thread, with people having various opinions both regarding effectiveness and ethical appropriateness. The conversation seems to have been of an acceptable quality. Also, presumably, by the people people thought and analysed their intuitions before making the assertions. This isn’t me claiming here that whatever position people have is necessarily ‘right’—people disagreed after all. I am just suggesting that the reference class labelling is rather irrelevant when screened off by the specific details already.
By way of explanation by anecdote I have fond memories of hearing the observation “You make a compelling argument for eating babies” in response to a similar pattern. ie. “A is in X. X is evil therefore A is evil.” --> “A is in X. A isn’t evil therefore not all X are evil.”
Link please. I haven’t seen anything resembling “analyzing the scenario on its merits”.