Especially in such a contentious argument, I think it’s bad epistemics to link to a page with some random dude saying he personally believes x (and giving no argument for it) with the linktext ‘most people believe x’.
Also, I’d guess most people who value diversity of experience mean that only for positive experiences. I doubt most would mean repeated bad experiences aren’t as bad as diverse bad experiences, all else equal.
Probably, yeah. But that seems hard to square with a consistent theory of moral value, given that there’s a continuum between “good” and “bad” experiences.
I think you gave up on your theory being maximally consistent when you opted for diversity of experience as a metavalue. Most people don’t actually consider their own positive experiences cheapened by someone on the other side of the world having a similar experience.
Also, if you’re doing morality by intuition (a methodology I think has no future), then I suspect most people would much sooner drop ‘diversity of experience good’ than ‘torture bad’.
Especially in such a contentious argument, I think it’s bad epistemics to link to a page with some random dude saying he personally believes x (and giving no argument for it) with the linktext ‘most people believe x’.
Also, I’d guess most people who value diversity of experience mean that only for positive experiences. I doubt most would mean repeated bad experiences aren’t as bad as diverse bad experiences, all else equal.
Probably, yeah. But that seems hard to square with a consistent theory of moral value, given that there’s a continuum between “good” and “bad” experiences.
I think you gave up on your theory being maximally consistent when you opted for diversity of experience as a metavalue. Most people don’t actually consider their own positive experiences cheapened by someone on the other side of the world having a similar experience.
Also, if you’re doing morality by intuition (a methodology I think has no future), then I suspect most people would much sooner drop ‘diversity of experience good’ than ‘torture bad’.
What do you mean? The continuum passes through morally neutral experiences, so we can just treat good and bad asymmetrically.
If an experience can be simultaneously good and bad, we can just treat its goodness and badness asymmetrically, too.
I didn’t mean it to be evidence for the statement, just an explanation of what I meant by the phrase.
Do you disagree that most people value that? My impression is that wireheading and hedonium are widely seen as undesirable.