I am keen to read critiques of Teo’s claims but I downvoted this comment for a couple of reasons:
1) Aggressive language—I felt that Teo’s comment was written in good faith and I was surprised that you dismissed it in such strong words: “extremely misleading”, “not remotely fair or accurate”, “an incendiary charge”.
2) Appeals to authority—It doesn’t matter to me that “pretty much every expert in moral philosophy” disagrees. I want to know why they disagree and be referred to relevant authors or papers that make these arguments.
Thanks for explaining your perspective. I hope most people will instead vote based on whether they think the comment will add to or detract from the understanding of most readers. To briefly explain why I don’t think the two factors you point to are indicative of a low-quality comment:
(1) A comment may be “written in good faith” and yet have the effect of being misleading, unfair, or otherwise harmful. If a comment does have these effects, and especially if it is being highly upvoted (suggesting that many readers are being taken in by it), then I think it is important to be clear about this. (Note that I made no claims about Teo’s motivations, nor did I cast any personal attacks. I simply criticized the content of what was written, in a clear and direct way.)
So I would instead ask readers to assess whether my objections were merited. Is it true that Teo’s comment “[made] it sound like the author favours causing a net increase in suffering for his own personal gain”? If so, that would in fact be extremely misleading, not remotely fair or accurate, etc. So I think it’s worth being clear on this.
Of course, if you think I’m being idiosyncratic and no casual reader would come away with the impression I’m worried about here, then by all means downvote my comment for simple inaccuracy.
(2) Certainly, you don’t have to defer to the opinion of moral philosophers if you don’t trust that we’re well-placed to judge the matter in question. Still, the info may be helpful for many, so (imo) sharing info about an expert consensus should not be viewed negatively.
I am keen to read critiques of Teo’s claims but I downvoted this comment for a couple of reasons:
1) Aggressive language—I felt that Teo’s comment was written in good faith and I was surprised that you dismissed it in such strong words: “extremely misleading”, “not remotely fair or accurate”, “an incendiary charge”.
2) Appeals to authority—It doesn’t matter to me that “pretty much every expert in moral philosophy” disagrees. I want to know why they disagree and be referred to relevant authors or papers that make these arguments.
Thanks for explaining your perspective. I hope most people will instead vote based on whether they think the comment will add to or detract from the understanding of most readers. To briefly explain why I don’t think the two factors you point to are indicative of a low-quality comment:
(1) A comment may be “written in good faith” and yet have the effect of being misleading, unfair, or otherwise harmful. If a comment does have these effects, and especially if it is being highly upvoted (suggesting that many readers are being taken in by it), then I think it is important to be clear about this. (Note that I made no claims about Teo’s motivations, nor did I cast any personal attacks. I simply criticized the content of what was written, in a clear and direct way.)
So I would instead ask readers to assess whether my objections were merited. Is it true that Teo’s comment “[made] it sound like the author favours causing a net increase in suffering for his own personal gain”? If so, that would in fact be extremely misleading, not remotely fair or accurate, etc. So I think it’s worth being clear on this.
Of course, if you think I’m being idiosyncratic and no casual reader would come away with the impression I’m worried about here, then by all means downvote my comment for simple inaccuracy.
(2) Certainly, you don’t have to defer to the opinion of moral philosophers if you don’t trust that we’re well-placed to judge the matter in question. Still, the info may be helpful for many, so (imo) sharing info about an expert consensus should not be viewed negatively.