undefined | Better HN

0 pointsvoldacar5y ago0 comments

You are assuming the point you are trying to prove: that von Neumann was unjustified in advocating for these things. Maybe he was just smarter than you (and me) and just had a really good argument for believing those things, given the state of the world at the time and his various priors.

Also, humans have created thousands of different and highly contradictory systems of morality over the past several thousand years. You would probably be better off not believing that you have discovered the Correct Theory of Morality.

0 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

spacechild15y ago· 2 in thread

At least in hindsight I can say with confidence that John von Neumann was wrong in this matter. Or do you really think things could have turned out better if the US had began a nuclear war?

voldacarOP5y ago

It is one thing to say that in hindsight he held a wrong belief, and another thing entirely (especially without knowing his exact arguments and priors) to say that he held a wrong belief at the time and was not only wrong, but also therefore morally defective.

spacechild15y ago

I would actually argue for the latter. Even if he might have had valid geopolitical reasons to advocate a nuclear strike (althought I highly doubt it), it would have been morally wrong nevertheless. In my opinion, there is never an ethical justification for the usage of atomic weapons. In fact, I firmly believe that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was ethically wrong as well, but I know that other people have a different opinion on this matter.

bryanrasmussen5y ago· 1 in thread

It is very difficult to conceive of Japan having turned out any better if Kyoto had been destroyed.

voldacarOP5y ago

I agree, but I think there are many ways of arguing that the destruction of Kyoto was justified at the time that do not involve arguing that it would make Japan better off. And like I said, there is more than one theory of morality :)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse