I agree that it’s pretty likely octopi are morally relevant, though we should distinguish between “30% likelihood of moral relevance” and “moral weight relative to a human”.
Do you think the initial post would have read better as: “I think that an octopus is ~30% likely to be as morally relevant as an adult human (with wide error bars, I don’t know as much about the invertebrates as I’d like to), so this is pretty horrifying to me.”?
Oh, I’m sorry for being unclear! The second phrasing emphasizes different words (as and adult human) in a way I thought made the meaning of the original post clearer.
I agree that it’s pretty likely octopi are morally relevant, though we should distinguish between “30% likelihood of moral relevance” and “moral weight relative to a human”.
Do you think the initial post would have read better as: “I think that an octopus is ~30% likely to be as morally relevant as an adult human (with wide error bars, I don’t know as much about the invertebrates as I’d like to), so this is pretty horrifying to me.”?
Oh wait, did you already edit the original comment? If not I might have misread it.
I haven’t edited the original comment.
Okay sorry, maybe I’m having a stroke and don’t understand. The original phrasing and new phrasing look identical to me.
Oh, I’m sorry for being unclear! The second phrasing emphasizes different words (as and adult human) in a way I thought made the meaning of the original post clearer.