I don’t know, my sense is the earlier comment correctly points to something being a little off here. Like a (not necessarily intentional) motte-and-bailey thing where the bailey (the part that gets defended) is “this community should have a norm of not shaming people for being less-than-maximally altruistic,” and the motte is “it’s ethically acceptable for people to not act maximally altruistically.” But drawing from the latter claim (without justifying/scrutinizing it with ethical arguments) seems like severely devaluing ethical argumentation, which seems pretty questionable both philosophically and as a norm. (It also feels weirdly at odds with the community’s usual norm of caring a lot about ethical reasoning/argumentation.) I think the earlier comment does well at teasing apart different versions of “it’s fine,” a necessary step for noticing the potential motte-and-bailey error.
(I’m still sympathetic to a community norm of letting people leave if they want to; I feel iffy about the community justifying that norm by denying the ethical value of helping others more, or by denying the claim that (if approached in a healthy way) this community has e.g., some ideas that are pretty helpful for doing more good.)
I don’t know, my sense is the earlier comment correctly points to something being a little off here. Like a (not necessarily intentional) motte-and-bailey thing where the bailey (the part that gets defended) is “this community should have a norm of not shaming people for being less-than-maximally altruistic,” and the motte is “it’s ethically acceptable for people to not act maximally altruistically.” But drawing from the latter claim (without justifying/scrutinizing it with ethical arguments) seems like severely devaluing ethical argumentation, which seems pretty questionable both philosophically and as a norm. (It also feels weirdly at odds with the community’s usual norm of caring a lot about ethical reasoning/argumentation.) I think the earlier comment does well at teasing apart different versions of “it’s fine,” a necessary step for noticing the potential motte-and-bailey error.
(I’m still sympathetic to a community norm of letting people leave if they want to; I feel iffy about the community justifying that norm by denying the ethical value of helping others more, or by denying the claim that (if approached in a healthy way) this community has e.g., some ideas that are pretty helpful for doing more good.)