mdurak
3mo ago
The sophisticated users will resort to using VPNs (at least until those get fully banned).
Perhaps by the services themselves, rather than any government. Once I turned my VPN on, Google blocked me from search even after I solved a few captchas.
mdurak
3mo ago
authorities believe this crime was committed and would like to view all of their encrypted data.
And how do you propose authorities do that if the device is turned off and the data has been securely encrypted at rest? Put back doors into every computing device to prevent this scenario from arising?
mdurak
3mo ago
Over a decade ago, the BBC came out with a documentary titled How to Kill a Human Being that went into what the director believed to be the most humane and painless way to execute someone if you really wish to do so. Towards the end of the documentary, they interview someone who believes that death row criminals don’t deserve the most humane death possible because those criminals hardly offered their own victims a humane death. The documentary gives it an air of “Look, we’ve found a humane way to actually do executions, and these barbaric Americans don’t want to do that because to them, bloodthirsty cruelty is the point.”
Well, what do you know, Alabama has now actually implemented this “most humane” form of execution for the first time, and news coverage from the BBC and others have been almost exclusively negative. There’s little to no nuance, just statements that the UN and EU condemns this “particularly cruel and unusual punishment.” Where now is the context that the US is merely doing what it was previously criticized for not doing?
To be sure, the scene of thrashing does seem to be more violent than the documentary insinuated such an execution would be, but that itself appears to be because the inmate tried to forcibly hold their breath for as long as possible instead of allowing themselves to pass out from hypoxia. I wouldn’t pin the blame for voluntary thrashing on the method of execution.
What do you think? Am I wrong in reading this as just another case of “Americans can do nothing right”?
mdurak
3mo ago
It sounds like the chokehold lasted for some time after Neely passed out, though it’s unclear exactly how long, so I wouldn’t say Neely was obviously uncharacteristically fragile. But fair enough, it was not the greatest loss to society, as callous as that may be to say.
mdurak
3mo ago
I’m not sure what your point is. It seems we agree that the legal system is too lax on shitty mentally ill people, and we also agree that this doesn’t justify vigilante violence going too far?
mdurak
3mo ago
Did Neely actually violently attack anyone? From the wiki article it sounds like he was just screaming at people and disturbing the peace. Perhaps he deserved to get roughed up for that, but getting killed seems a bit of a reach.
mdurak
3mo ago
Ah I see what you mean now. I haven’t encountered this specific line of reasoning before, so thanks for introducing it to me.
I’m curious about a couple of follow-up questions: if animals aren’t moral actors, are animals entitled to any amount of ethical treatment? Or is it moral to torture animals for any or no reason at all?
And are only the humans that are moral actors deserving of moral rights? Would it be fine to kill an orphaned infant before it has developed enough moral understanding to be a moral agent of its own?
mdurak
3mo ago
Just to follow up in case you’re still interested: I just concluded a nice discussion with aquota where we both acknowledged it comes down to power and realpolitik rather than any higher ethical cause.
If you’re able to come up with a loftier rationale as to why the moral line should be drawn specifically at the species boundary, I would still love to hear it.
mdurak
3mo ago
That is fair. I will endeavor to make more of a distinction in my mind in the future.
mdurak
3mo ago
I really don't see why it would be more convincing to an AI overlord whether or not I have hold some kind of non-hypocritical reason for why it should value human life while I don't value life of less sentient beings.
If a legitimate non-hypocritical reason exists, then perhaps we can just debug the AI enough until it can properly reason through and realize for itself why we deserve our privileged position in reality. If no such rationale exists, then I suppose we’ll have to resort to cruder approaches for AI alignment.
I’m just spitballing there. I’m not actually looking for ways to align AI, but rather to see if I can morally justify non-hypocritically to myself why I can eat animals. On a personal level, I feel better about AI taking over and screwing us over if I know that it’s just us finally losing the same realpolitik game that we’ve inflicted onto “lesser” beings for eons, than if it’s the AI making a monumental moral misjudgment.
Thanks for the fruitful discussion.
mdurak
4mo ago
Do you think it’s an unreasonable approximation to make when it appears that most Palestinians support Hamas and/or the 7/10 attacks?
mdurak
4mo ago
That’s a good point, and I agree.
I suppose the only thing I have to say is that this is a rather realpolitik answer, no? It fails to be an argument against genocide if the Nazis ever gain such overwhelming power that they no longer fear a revolt from the “subhumans.” (Or if you find that scenario as unlikely as I do, if the AIs gain such overwhelming power that they no longer need to care about human desires.)
mdurak
4mo ago
I flagged the premise as being smuggled in here and lodged my disagreement.
Ah gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
If I needed to ground out that human life is sacred I would say that I and all my loved ones are humans and I have a vested interest in their lives not being forfeit.
Fair enough! But surely the Nazi will also ground out their values in a similar manner: “Aryan lives are sacred because I and all my loved ones are Aryans. Non-Aryan lives though are not morally fungible with Aryan lives: not one, not ten, not infinity.”
What can you say to the Nazi that invalidates their argument, without also arguing on behalf of veganism?
mdurak
4mo ago
- There is a moral difference between hurting humans and hurting animals
- There is a moral equivalence between hurting humans and hurting animals
I don’t see how one side is inherently more of a “positive” claim than the other. Regardless, if you take the position of moral difference by default, how do you respond to the Nazi who says “There is a moral difference between gassing Aryans and gassing Jews”?
mdurak
4mo ago
Well if someone made the 'racist' argument I would tell them good luck with the law, which cares not about your bizarre dietary principles.
Sure, but we’re not debating the law as it is, only theoretical morality. Veganism is not the law in most (or all?) places on earth, but that doesn’t stop some people from arguing for that.
I won't eat anything that can argue for its life
This sounds like a more refined version of “it’s okay to eat sufficiently unintelligent things.” Does this extend to human infants, non-verbal highly autistic adults, or anyone else whose intelligence falls below the threshold of arguing for their own existence?
mdurak
4mo ago
I mean, I agree with you on the potential implications of speciesism. But what arguments do you actually have against its validity as a moral concept? What convinces you to draw the line at human vs non-human, versus any other arbitrary boundary?
mdurak
4mo ago
the argument is that humans are not morally fungible with animals. Not one chicken, not ten chickens, not infinity chickens.
And we’re back to the starting point, aren’t we?
What arguments do you present for drawing such a moral line between humans and animals?
mdurak
4mo ago
Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood you, but it sounds like you only care about reciprocity if the entity you’re interacting with can and does behave with honor towards you, and you believe animals are incapable of honor.
Doesn’t this just push the delineation down to where you draw the line with “honor”? How do you define honor in such a way as to exclude animals from being capable of it, while including all humans in the mix? Is it fine to kill a human infant (or any human with sufficiently low agency) because they are incapable of honoring you any more than a dog can?
mdurak
4mo ago
I would actually like to debate you on vegan/vegetarianism, because I have been unable to rigorously justify the ethics of eating meat to myself. I do it anyways, because I’m not a saint and morals are arbitrary anyways.
I’ll copy paste another comment I made in the thread:
Isn’t animals not having moral equivalence just another axiomatic assumption you can make? How would you prove that someone is in the wrong for assigning moral equivalence to chickens?
And supposing you value humans more due to our intelligence, does that mean it is more ethical to make unintelligent humans suffer than intelligent ones? You can substitute any other attribute other than intelligence here.
If instead you go the route of saying “I am arbitrarily drawing the line at humans because I am speciesist, but all other animals are fair game,” can’t someone else arbitrarily tighten that circle further and say “I am arbitrarily drawing the line at whites because I am racist, but all other humans and animals are fair game”?
Is there an argument that both allows you to ethically kill or factory farm animals for food, without also allowing someone else to ethically kill or factory farm animals for food? (Disregard how inefficient and pointless factory farming humans for meat would be, this is just a question about the ethics of it.)
Isn’t animals not having moral equivalence just another axiomatic assumption you can make? How would you prove that someone is in the wrong for assigning moral equivalence to chickens?
And supposing you value humans more due to our intelligence, does that mean it is more ethical to make unintelligent humans suffer than intelligent ones? You can substitute any other attribute other than intelligence here.
If instead you go the route of saying “I am arbitrarily drawing the line at humans because I am speciesist, but all other animals are fair game,” can’t someone else arbitrarily tighten that circle further and say “I am arbitrarily drawing the line at whites because I am racist, but all other humans and animals are fair game”?
Is there an argument that both allows you to ethically kill or factory farm animals for food, without also allowing someone else to ethically kill or factory farm animals for food? (Disregard how inefficient and pointless factory farming humans for meat would be, this is just a question about the ethics of it.)
mdurak
4mo ago
Could you explain how Australia’s geography and economy has such an impact on its politics?
mdurak
4mo ago
Data beats theory. Unless you’ve observed otherwise yourself, @token_progressive is the only one providing (anec)data here
Erm, I don’t think anybody holding significant amounts of power is looking to truly upset the current neoliberal capitalistic order.
More options
Context Copy link