But I think that you’re losing sight of my point that these arguments have all served to commit mass murder on people with much lower mental abilities than the average human.
If this is the “point,” then your comment reduces to an invalid appeal-to-consequences argument. The fact that some people use an argument for morally evil purposes tells us nothing about the logical validity of that argument. After all, Evil can make use of truth (sometimes selectively) just as easily as Good can; we don’t live in a fairy tale where trade-offs between Good and Truth are inexistent. The asymmetry is between Truth and Falsehood, not between Good and Evil.
As far as I can tell, gwern’s point is entirely correct, completely invalidates your entire previous comment (“I would expect you to already know that chimpanzees have an IQ lower than 60 and are capable of taking care of themselves and having a decent life.”), and you did not address it at all in your follow-up.
If this is the “point,” then your comment reduces to an invalid appeal-to-consequences argument. The fact that some people use an argument for morally evil purposes tells us nothing about the logical validity of that argument. After all, Evil can make use of truth (sometimes selectively) just as easily as Good can; we don’t live in a fairy tale where trade-offs between Good and Truth are inexistent. The asymmetry is between Truth and Falsehood, not between Good and Evil.
As far as I can tell, gwern’s point is entirely correct, completely invalidates your entire previous comment (“I would expect you to already know that chimpanzees have an IQ lower than 60 and are capable of taking care of themselves and having a decent life.”), and you did not address it at all in your follow-up.