Does this pay rent in policy changes? It seems probable that existing policy positions will already determine the contexts in which we might choose to apply this quote, so that the quote will only be generating the appearance of additional evidential weight, but will in fact result in double-counting if we use its applicability as evidence for or against a proposal, because we already chose to use the quote because we disagreed with the porposal. For example: ‘This imperialist intervention is wrong—Fuck every cause that ends in murder and children crying.’ Is the latter clause doing any work?
(First version of this comment:
Does this pay rent in suggested policies? It feels like under all plausible interpretations, it’s at best ‘I’m so righteous!’ and possibly otherthings.)
Yes. It rules out all sorts of policies, including good ones. It likely rules out murdering Hitler to prevent a war, especially if that requires killing guards in order to get to him.
I agree entirely with your new wording. This quote seems to be the sort of claim to bring out conditionally against causes we oppose but conveniently ignore when we support the cause.
Does this pay rent in policy changes? It seems probable that existing policy positions will already determine the contexts in which we might choose to apply this quote, so that the quote will only be generating the appearance of additional evidential weight, but will in fact result in double-counting if we use its applicability as evidence for or against a proposal, because we already chose to use the quote because we disagreed with the porposal. For example: ‘This imperialist intervention is wrong—Fuck every cause that ends in murder and children crying.’ Is the latter clause doing any work?
(First version of this comment:
Does this pay rent in suggested policies? It feels like under all plausible interpretations, it’s at best ‘I’m so righteous!’ and possibly other things.)
Yes. It rules out all sorts of policies, including good ones. It likely rules out murdering Hitler to prevent a war, especially if that requires killing guards in order to get to him.
Upvoted; wording was bad. Edited.
I agree entirely with your new wording. This quote seems to be the sort of claim to bring out conditionally against causes we oppose but conveniently ignore when we support the cause.