undefined | Better HN

0 pointsshuntress5y ago0 comments

>You can know that something is the right thing to do but not have the courage to physically harm someone to do it.

In this specific case the "thing to do" is literally to harm hundreds of thousands of people.

The reasoning behind this proposed interlock is that any logic which concludes that it is moral and rational to harm hundreds of thousands of people must also conclude that it is moral and rational to harm the "interlock" individual. Otherwise, it is likely that dropping the bomb would be a mistake.

0 comments

chrisseaton5y ago

> The reasoning behind this proposed interlock is that any logic which concludes that it is moral and rational to harm hundreds of thousands of people must also conclude that it is moral and rational to harm the "interlock" individual.

Yes, but you can know it's the right thing to do, but not be able to physically do it.

The president's ability to physically cut someone open is not relevant to whether it's a good idea to use nuclear weapons or not. Him being unable to do it tells you nothing about whether they should be launching the weapons.

If the president fails the test that tells you nothing about whether the launch is the right thing to do. Doesn't that fundamentally make the test bad?

UncleMeat5y ago

It isn't about testing if the president can do surgery. It is about forcing the president to look somebody in the eye before they kill them.

chrisseaton5y ago

> It is about forcing the president to look somebody in the eye before they kill them.

Right, but can you understand that 'the President being able to look somebody in the eye before they killing them' is not a requisite for 'the employment of nuclear weapons being justified'?

We require the president to be able to do B before they can do A. But what if A is the right thing to do but the President is not able to do B? Being not able to do B does not mean A is wrong.

See the logical disconnect?

3 more replies

lmm5y ago

> The president's ability to physically cut someone open is not relevant to whether it's a good idea to use nuclear weapons or not. Him being unable to do it tells you nothing about whether they should be launching the weapons.

Our emotional systems are the product of millions of years of evolution and often (not always, but often) show better judgement than our "higher" faculties. Bringing that part of our capabilities into the decision-making loop is a very good idea.

shuntressOP5y ago

>The president's ability to physically cut someone open is not relevant to whether it's a good idea to use nuclear weapons or not

I'm sure if the president was physically incapable of wielding a knife, she would have someone on hand to do that for her.

chrisseaton5y ago

I think the whole point of the 'rule' is that they have to do it themselves.

1 more reply

bee_rider5y ago

Do you mean, like, the physical strength required to cut a person open? That seems like a very specific implementation detail.

chrisseaton5y ago

Well exactly - lots of specific details of literally cutting someone open that aren't relevant for a considered application of nuclear weapons.

But really I meant being able to 'bring yourself' to cut someone.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

chrisseaton5y ago

Yes, but you can know it's the right thing to do, but not be able to physically do it.

If the president fails the test that tells you nothing about whether the launch is the right thing to do. Doesn't that fundamentally make the test bad?

UncleMeat5y ago

It isn't about testing if the president can do surgery. It is about forcing the president to look somebody in the eye before they kill them.

chrisseaton5y ago

> It is about forcing the president to look somebody in the eye before they kill them.

Right, but can you understand that 'the President being able to look somebody in the eye before they killing them' is not a requisite for 'the employment of nuclear weapons being justified'?

We require the president to be able to do B before they can do A. But what if A is the right thing to do but the President is not able to do B? Being not able to do B does not mean A is wrong.

See the logical disconnect?

3 more replies

lmm5y ago

shuntressOP5y ago

>The president's ability to physically cut someone open is not relevant to whether it's a good idea to use nuclear weapons or not

I'm sure if the president was physically incapable of wielding a knife, she would have someone on hand to do that for her.

chrisseaton5y ago

I think the whole point of the 'rule' is that they have to do it themselves.

1 more reply

bee_rider5y ago

Do you mean, like, the physical strength required to cut a person open? That seems like a very specific implementation detail.

chrisseaton5y ago

Well exactly - lots of specific details of literally cutting someone open that aren't relevant for a considered application of nuclear weapons.

But really I meant being able to 'bring yourself' to cut someone.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse