For the âI would be sad for those boundariesâ I think there is reason not to naively just obey it but its not as hopeless as âbeing laughed out of the roomâ.
I want to differentiate two different layers of this problem: A difference in what is a natural category to a person and how to manage and choose a shared meaning system.
I previously used a analogy of berries which are chemically different but morhpologically very similar, ie they have nearly the same color but they are metabolically different. Then say there is a small fraction of humans that have a lot of trouble digesting one variant and very easy time with the other variant while most other humans have equally easy peasy time with all variants.
Now I want to evoke an analogy of nut allergy. If you have a nut allergy you really really want for packaging to contain information if there are nuts in the product or whether there is possibility of traces. One could also imagine a human that did not infact have a nut allergy but just disliked the taste of nuts. Both groups would be for lessening the amounts of nuts used in cooking and both groups would be for labeling products that do use nuts so they could not consume them.
Someone could be âallergy scepticalâ and think people that advocate for nutlabels are all or mostly people who just really dislike nut flavour. Then the âproof of the existence of allergiesâ would be to specify how nuts entering cause harm beyond mild annoyance and symptoms like death. And in a âtypicalâ human this allergy and harm is not present.
A nut allergic person forced to navigate a world that doesnât support nut detection would be genuinely dangerous. If they have anxiety or fear about it that would be justified by the structure of their existence.
A claim of sadness from a particular concept could be likened to a report of how an allergic persons immune responds has different properties. Or of a claim how racistic institutions or behaviours cause elevated cortisol levels. To say that high cortisols levels are a âyou problemâ points to the direction of that the proper reaction against hostility would be calmness rather than stress. So with those words it could also read to not be blackmail but just informing of the (likely) consequences.
Where it would go full blackmail is if the primary effect is to have the desired societal policy in place and we fabricate the required story to get it passed. A nut-disliker might want to upsell their unpleasantness that they get. There is a the danger that if they lie âit would kill meâ than people could disbelieve genuine allergics reports.
So I think the âbut me sadâ argument is at its weakest on whether or not there are laws of rationality that are in fact violated. Feelings donât have any specific âfree passâ to be freely chosen and like fear or anxiety can be improperly paranoic or proper threat detection the feeling of sadness should be based. For dolphins I would need to genuinely ask âwhat do you mean makes you sad?â, I would guess that the nut case could be established (and a nut-disliker would need to lie) althought the detail level as a non-allergic person is a bit fuzzy to me. For the controversial area it is likey that it is hard to estalish what happens and via what mechanism and there is a lot of trusting the word and understanding of different parties (chemists and biologists donât have much disagreement about the properties of nuts or human guts).
As a non-allergic person I should not be annoyed that my food is filled with annoying and senseless-to-me food information. And arguing that senseless-to-me would be a very good basis for senseless-for-food-packaging. It is a different issues whether we for example consider dogs to be food consumers and include them in our circle of care when making labeling decisions (âbut it wasnât labeled toxic for dogs!â is not a valid excuse atleast in this point in time). What happens in the âgeneral caseâ can be very relative.
For the âI would be sad for those boundariesâ I think there is reason not to naively just obey it but its not as hopeless as âbeing laughed out of the roomâ.
I want to differentiate two different layers of this problem: A difference in what is a natural category to a person and how to manage and choose a shared meaning system.
I previously used a analogy of berries which are chemically different but morhpologically very similar, ie they have nearly the same color but they are metabolically different. Then say there is a small fraction of humans that have a lot of trouble digesting one variant and very easy time with the other variant while most other humans have equally easy peasy time with all variants.
Now I want to evoke an analogy of nut allergy. If you have a nut allergy you really really want for packaging to contain information if there are nuts in the product or whether there is possibility of traces. One could also imagine a human that did not infact have a nut allergy but just disliked the taste of nuts. Both groups would be for lessening the amounts of nuts used in cooking and both groups would be for labeling products that do use nuts so they could not consume them.
Someone could be âallergy scepticalâ and think people that advocate for nutlabels are all or mostly people who just really dislike nut flavour. Then the âproof of the existence of allergiesâ would be to specify how nuts entering cause harm beyond mild annoyance and symptoms like death. And in a âtypicalâ human this allergy and harm is not present.
A nut allergic person forced to navigate a world that doesnât support nut detection would be genuinely dangerous. If they have anxiety or fear about it that would be justified by the structure of their existence.
A claim of sadness from a particular concept could be likened to a report of how an allergic persons immune responds has different properties. Or of a claim how racistic institutions or behaviours cause elevated cortisol levels. To say that high cortisols levels are a âyou problemâ points to the direction of that the proper reaction against hostility would be calmness rather than stress. So with those words it could also read to not be blackmail but just informing of the (likely) consequences.
Where it would go full blackmail is if the primary effect is to have the desired societal policy in place and we fabricate the required story to get it passed. A nut-disliker might want to upsell their unpleasantness that they get. There is a the danger that if they lie âit would kill meâ than people could disbelieve genuine allergics reports.
So I think the âbut me sadâ argument is at its weakest on whether or not there are laws of rationality that are in fact violated. Feelings donât have any specific âfree passâ to be freely chosen and like fear or anxiety can be improperly paranoic or proper threat detection the feeling of sadness should be based. For dolphins I would need to genuinely ask âwhat do you mean makes you sad?â, I would guess that the nut case could be established (and a nut-disliker would need to lie) althought the detail level as a non-allergic person is a bit fuzzy to me. For the controversial area it is likey that it is hard to estalish what happens and via what mechanism and there is a lot of trusting the word and understanding of different parties (chemists and biologists donât have much disagreement about the properties of nuts or human guts).
As a non-allergic person I should not be annoyed that my food is filled with annoying and senseless-to-me food information. And arguing that senseless-to-me would be a very good basis for senseless-for-food-packaging. It is a different issues whether we for example consider dogs to be food consumers and include them in our circle of care when making labeling decisions (âbut it wasnât labeled toxic for dogs!â is not a valid excuse atleast in this point in time). What happens in the âgeneral caseâ can be very relative.