I think this is a good first step towards understanding it. That said, this almost frames it as a way to handle adversarially chosen edge-cases, which I think doesn’t get to the core of the understanding. One thing I would highlight:
Don’t isolate people (e.g. because it makes them vulnerable, e.g. to abuse).
That is, “don’t isolate people” isn’t a rule because People Are Happier When They Are Around Others (even though that is true in a generic sense, and happiness does in a generic sense correlate with goodness). Rather, “don’t isolate people” is a rule because of the strategic consequences of isolation. As such, it is natural that “don’t isolate people” would focus on the strategic facet of isolation.
I think this is a good first step towards understanding it. That said, this almost frames it as a way to handle adversarially chosen edge-cases, which I think doesn’t get to the core of the understanding. One thing I would highlight:
That is, “don’t isolate people” isn’t a rule because People Are Happier When They Are Around Others (even though that is true in a generic sense, and happiness does in a generic sense correlate with goodness). Rather, “don’t isolate people” is a rule because of the strategic consequences of isolation. As such, it is natural that “don’t isolate people” would focus on the strategic facet of isolation.