I just wrote the term "non-fungibility" last night in a completely unrelated context, which prompted me to try and think of the last time I'd seen it written down and... here it is, as if on cue.
Really paul? Because im a big advocate for the 'get traffic moving' approach to managing accidents. No, actually, the worst day of your life does NOT also have to inconvenience me.
Hi! We once chatted on a live stream a bit about Israel. I'm chairman of Effective Altruism Helsinki and generally a fan of yours. I recommend you to check out 'The Repugnant Conclusion' or anything to do with Derek Parfit. I could also jump on to defend Utilitarianism as the ultimate dark centrist platform any time.
Just to give one clear counterargument here, consider an analogous scenario put in a different way:
Say there's a long queue (say, 100 people), and you have the power to cut in line to the front. You'd be inconvenienced by 100 units if you were to queue like the rest. However, you'd only inconvenience everyone by a mere 1 unit by cutting in line. By using Phenomenological Non-Aggregationism, I would be justified in jumping the queue. Hope this helps!
If I were persuaded of this approach, and then presented with a situation in which I have to choose between torturing 1 person for 10 minutes and torturing 1,000,000 people for 9 minutes, which should I pick?
You need to read the book "Antifragility" by Nassim Taleb. He explains what you're trying to explain in a more eloquent way and how it applies to many different types of systems. His book is definitely a strong introduction to modern pragmatist philosophy.
Societally, western protestant societies tend to think of risk with a one size fits all approach, whereas Taleb's approach on explaining risk is that all systems have a threshold of how much strain they can take before they break into not functioning at all. You hit that same point in your written piece here, but that idea can go much further, and society would work a lot better if we adopted a view of risk that understood breaking points, as opposed to blind averages that mean nothing.
This topic is not the only one his book covers, it's definitely worth a read.
Phenomenological non-fungibility feels better to me
I like it
I just wrote the term "non-fungibility" last night in a completely unrelated context, which prompted me to try and think of the last time I'd seen it written down and... here it is, as if on cue.
Really paul? Because im a big advocate for the 'get traffic moving' approach to managing accidents. No, actually, the worst day of your life does NOT also have to inconvenience me.
Hi! We once chatted on a live stream a bit about Israel. I'm chairman of Effective Altruism Helsinki and generally a fan of yours. I recommend you to check out 'The Repugnant Conclusion' or anything to do with Derek Parfit. I could also jump on to defend Utilitarianism as the ultimate dark centrist platform any time.
Just to give one clear counterargument here, consider an analogous scenario put in a different way:
Say there's a long queue (say, 100 people), and you have the power to cut in line to the front. You'd be inconvenienced by 100 units if you were to queue like the rest. However, you'd only inconvenience everyone by a mere 1 unit by cutting in line. By using Phenomenological Non-Aggregationism, I would be justified in jumping the queue. Hope this helps!
the good kush? is that like the Good Lord?
If I were persuaded of this approach, and then presented with a situation in which I have to choose between torturing 1 person for 10 minutes and torturing 1,000,000 people for 9 minutes, which should I pick?
You need to read the book "Antifragility" by Nassim Taleb. He explains what you're trying to explain in a more eloquent way and how it applies to many different types of systems. His book is definitely a strong introduction to modern pragmatist philosophy.
Societally, western protestant societies tend to think of risk with a one size fits all approach, whereas Taleb's approach on explaining risk is that all systems have a threshold of how much strain they can take before they break into not functioning at all. You hit that same point in your written piece here, but that idea can go much further, and society would work a lot better if we adopted a view of risk that understood breaking points, as opposed to blind averages that mean nothing.
This topic is not the only one his book covers, it's definitely worth a read.