I can’t tell what your point of view is on this. E. seems to be arguing (rightly imho) that we have an interest in other people’s “truths”.
It may help to know that “Well if we’ve discovered the absolute truth then it’s our duty to impose it on everybody else.” wasn’t my attempt at establishing a real norm, but rather I was following a not too uncommon (or rather not uncommon enough) way of thinking.
The syllogism we desire to avoid runs: “I think Susie said a bad thing, therefore, Susie should be set on fire.”
Yes, I’d like to avoid that sort of ..um.. proposal—I can’t quite see why one would call it a syllogism.
Yes, I’d like to avoid that sort of ..um.. proposal—I can’t quite see why one would call it a syllogism.
People would act as if it is a syllogism if they had one of the relevant (and not especially uncommon/unrealistic) premises. It would be a syllogism like...
Why? As Eliezer says here:
I can’t tell what your point of view is on this. E. seems to be arguing (rightly imho) that we have an interest in other people’s “truths”.
It may help to know that “Well if we’ve discovered the absolute truth then it’s our duty to impose it on everybody else.” wasn’t my attempt at establishing a real norm, but rather I was following a not too uncommon (or rather not uncommon enough) way of thinking.
Yes, I’d like to avoid that sort of ..um.. proposal—I can’t quite see why one would call it a syllogism.
People would act as if it is a syllogism if they had one of the relevant (and not especially uncommon/unrealistic) premises. It would be a syllogism like...
Susie said a bad thing
People who say bad things should be set on fire
Therefore, Susie should be set on fire.