I want to address your specific points, but let me first clarify what I’m not saying: I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad move, EY might be right that it’s good and should be considered. Maybe it’s true that the sexual habits of children are unimportant to parents, and if we reach a world where they are no longer considered that would be a better one. It’s also probably true that all things constant, laws that forbid this type of prostitution hurt more people than they help by building black markets. I am not disagreeing with him on any of those points.
I’m trying to make a much more subtle point, which is that when thinking through the possibilities we are often unable to decompose or understand some tradition, which doesn’t mean it isn’t still founded on a real and still actively useful reason.
To go back to why parents should care about the sexual habits of their children, I don’t think what I personally think matters. I think the reason parents care is due to very complex set of evolutionary and cultural systems, and they may be outdated and ready for us all to move past, or they may be achieving a purpose we aren’t aware of. I don’t think I can just invoke some philosophy and state “Based on my moral tenants of individual rights parents ought not to care about their children’s sexuality.” I think it’s a question of measurement and the pros/cons of a counterfactual world where they care less or more, and how that turns out.
I agree that in the past it seemed to be common to be unhappy (to understate it) if your child was homosexual, and the world seems better the more accepting parents are of their gay children. But I don’ think that’s sufficient evidence to predict they shouldn’t ever care.
In the “10,000 Year Explosion” Greg Cochran tracks how small selection pressures between genetics and culture resulted in crazy different outcomes for Ashkenaz Jews. It is possible small tweaks to complex systems can have outcomes nearly impossible to predict.
To go back to your point 2, as you note ’[He] argues that there are women for whom doing this might be a good move, and aren’t thinking enough about the possibility.” That’s what I was trying to disagree with. For some reason they aren’t considering it, there is a taboo or a cultural more that blocks them from consideration. It could be true that this is based on an outdated view of sexual morality, and all would be better if it were removed. That, honestly, could be the case. It could also be true that there is a good reason, but it’s embedded in this complex cultural system that doesn’t reveal itself to us. The point I wanted to make was that we need to be very careful when decomposing tradition, because it’s built on a complex system that makes understanding our impulses and societal moral institutions very hard.
Thanks for your comment though. I agree with you that I could have been clearer, and was not sufficiently charitable in arguing against and for his simpler and best points, and didn’t expand on the scenarios where he could be right, and the points I agreed with. I didn’t intend to make it seem as though he suggested all women should be considering this, but I do agree that’s how it came across. I’m trying to improve as a writer, so I do sincerely appreciate your feedback.
Maybe it’s true that the sexual habits of children are unimportant to parents
I’m not saying that there are no parents who care about the fact that their children aren’t homosexual or that it’s unimportant to them.
It seems to me like homosexuality is a much better example if you are sincere about exploring how traditional morality has advantages then deciding how a woman spends single day of her life. Yes, the woman might be more independent if she self funds university then being dependent on her parents funding her but the fact that homosexuals don’t pass on their genes to their children mean that parents don’t pass on their genes to grandchildren.
Instead of being clear and making that argument you talk about weird rationalists who are strange.
That’s what I was trying to disagree with. For some reason they aren’t considering it, there is a taboo or a cultural more that blocks them from consideration.
It seems like you don’t treat woman as individual people instead of some general abstract group. It possible that a rationalist woman who reads the post makes the decision that her life is better of if she makes the choice.
The post doesn’t say that any such woman should make the choice but just raises the awareness about the fact that it’s a possible choice.
Pointing to possible actions that individuals can take that have the possibility to produce massive value for the person is a good habit.
Thanks for your comment though. I agree with you that I could have been clearer, and was not sufficiently charitable in arguing against and for his simpler and best points
Not being charitable in arguing against and for his simpler and best points is especially problematic given the privacy violation of taking a statement from facebook into a more public forum.
It seems like you don’t treat woman as individual people instead of some general abstract group.
No kidding.
The whole point of the thread is to point out that humanity rationality might be better than human rationality in certain cases, and that we should be careful when throwing one out the window in favor of the other. Talking about people in the aggregate is unavoidable.
I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say about homosexuality. I don’t want to explore how traditional morality has advantages, because that’s a hard question and not something I have any reason to think I’d be all that good at. I do think that morality and tradition is complicated, so we have to be careful not to assume that we can reason through or against certain phenomena.
It’s always awkward talking about complex systems involving humans, because either you abstract away from individuals or you never talk about them. It’s even more difficult when trying to discuss why an individual should/shouldn’t take some self-interested action based on how other people may react, based on other peoples traditional views, which may be sensible or may be insane. Over time we enter an equilibrium based on the costs/benefits an abstract community places on certain actions. So, I think, the question becomes are individuals responsible for trying to keep a good equilibrium in place? And is it possible to easily predict how shifts will change the equilibrium for better or worse? I don’t know the answer to that, or that there even is an answer.
I get the point you’re making, and it’s an important one that I did not address, and thinking back I should have thought about it and admitted I don’t know the answer. That at the individual level people should weight their own cost/benefit with respect to their own life, not as part of some abstract group.
To your final point, I edited my post based on Daniel’s comment to remove the facebook link. I didn’t see it as a privacy violation, but since people think it’s bad etiquette I’m happy to adjust.
I think the progressive default is that individuals don’t have the burden to lead their sex lives in way their family approves of.
When you present “We don’t know how their families would react on an aggregate scale” as an argument you question that progressive default.
Homosexuality is as good of an example where parents can object to the sexual habits of their children as this example is.
So, I think, the question becomes are individuals responsible for trying to keep a good equilibrium in place?
I do think it makes sense to follow clearly beneficial social norms for the sake of society as a whole.
In this case you don’t make any specific case of why the social norm is worth protecting and a huge part of why the norm exists is due reasons that became obsolete with the introduction of birth control.
I don’t want to explore how traditional morality has advantages, because that’s a hard question and not something I have any reason to think I’d be all that good at.
Isn’t your whole post about how rationality leads to the violation of the morality that traditions prescribe?
I want to address your specific points, but let me first clarify what I’m not saying: I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad move, EY might be right that it’s good and should be considered. Maybe it’s true that the sexual habits of children are unimportant to parents, and if we reach a world where they are no longer considered that would be a better one. It’s also probably true that all things constant, laws that forbid this type of prostitution hurt more people than they help by building black markets. I am not disagreeing with him on any of those points.
I’m trying to make a much more subtle point, which is that when thinking through the possibilities we are often unable to decompose or understand some tradition, which doesn’t mean it isn’t still founded on a real and still actively useful reason.
To go back to why parents should care about the sexual habits of their children, I don’t think what I personally think matters. I think the reason parents care is due to very complex set of evolutionary and cultural systems, and they may be outdated and ready for us all to move past, or they may be achieving a purpose we aren’t aware of. I don’t think I can just invoke some philosophy and state “Based on my moral tenants of individual rights parents ought not to care about their children’s sexuality.” I think it’s a question of measurement and the pros/cons of a counterfactual world where they care less or more, and how that turns out.
I agree that in the past it seemed to be common to be unhappy (to understate it) if your child was homosexual, and the world seems better the more accepting parents are of their gay children. But I don’ think that’s sufficient evidence to predict they shouldn’t ever care.
In the “10,000 Year Explosion” Greg Cochran tracks how small selection pressures between genetics and culture resulted in crazy different outcomes for Ashkenaz Jews. It is possible small tweaks to complex systems can have outcomes nearly impossible to predict.
To go back to your point 2, as you note ’[He] argues that there are women for whom doing this might be a good move, and aren’t thinking enough about the possibility.” That’s what I was trying to disagree with. For some reason they aren’t considering it, there is a taboo or a cultural more that blocks them from consideration. It could be true that this is based on an outdated view of sexual morality, and all would be better if it were removed. That, honestly, could be the case. It could also be true that there is a good reason, but it’s embedded in this complex cultural system that doesn’t reveal itself to us. The point I wanted to make was that we need to be very careful when decomposing tradition, because it’s built on a complex system that makes understanding our impulses and societal moral institutions very hard.
Thanks for your comment though. I agree with you that I could have been clearer, and was not sufficiently charitable in arguing against and for his simpler and best points, and didn’t expand on the scenarios where he could be right, and the points I agreed with. I didn’t intend to make it seem as though he suggested all women should be considering this, but I do agree that’s how it came across. I’m trying to improve as a writer, so I do sincerely appreciate your feedback.
I’m not saying that there are no parents who care about the fact that their children aren’t homosexual or that it’s unimportant to them.
It seems to me like homosexuality is a much better example if you are sincere about exploring how traditional morality has advantages then deciding how a woman spends single day of her life. Yes, the woman might be more independent if she self funds university then being dependent on her parents funding her but the fact that homosexuals don’t pass on their genes to their children mean that parents don’t pass on their genes to grandchildren.
Instead of being clear and making that argument you talk about weird rationalists who are strange.
It seems like you don’t treat woman as individual people instead of some general abstract group. It possible that a rationalist woman who reads the post makes the decision that her life is better of if she makes the choice.
The post doesn’t say that any such woman should make the choice but just raises the awareness about the fact that it’s a possible choice.
Pointing to possible actions that individuals can take that have the possibility to produce massive value for the person is a good habit.
Not being charitable in arguing against and for his simpler and best points is especially problematic given the privacy violation of taking a statement from facebook into a more public forum.
No kidding.
The whole point of the thread is to point out that humanity rationality might be better than human rationality in certain cases, and that we should be careful when throwing one out the window in favor of the other. Talking about people in the aggregate is unavoidable.
I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say about homosexuality. I don’t want to explore how traditional morality has advantages, because that’s a hard question and not something I have any reason to think I’d be all that good at. I do think that morality and tradition is complicated, so we have to be careful not to assume that we can reason through or against certain phenomena.
It’s always awkward talking about complex systems involving humans, because either you abstract away from individuals or you never talk about them. It’s even more difficult when trying to discuss why an individual should/shouldn’t take some self-interested action based on how other people may react, based on other peoples traditional views, which may be sensible or may be insane. Over time we enter an equilibrium based on the costs/benefits an abstract community places on certain actions. So, I think, the question becomes are individuals responsible for trying to keep a good equilibrium in place? And is it possible to easily predict how shifts will change the equilibrium for better or worse? I don’t know the answer to that, or that there even is an answer.
I get the point you’re making, and it’s an important one that I did not address, and thinking back I should have thought about it and admitted I don’t know the answer. That at the individual level people should weight their own cost/benefit with respect to their own life, not as part of some abstract group.
To your final point, I edited my post based on Daniel’s comment to remove the facebook link. I didn’t see it as a privacy violation, but since people think it’s bad etiquette I’m happy to adjust.
I think the progressive default is that individuals don’t have the burden to lead their sex lives in way their family approves of.
When you present “We don’t know how their families would react on an aggregate scale” as an argument you question that progressive default.
Homosexuality is as good of an example where parents can object to the sexual habits of their children as this example is.
I do think it makes sense to follow clearly beneficial social norms for the sake of society as a whole.
In this case you don’t make any specific case of why the social norm is worth protecting and a huge part of why the norm exists is due reasons that became obsolete with the introduction of birth control.
Isn’t your whole post about how rationality leads to the violation of the morality that traditions prescribe?