Without a metric, how is this any different from saying that the fall of monarchies in the 20th century is a step backwards?
You were responding to DI, who asked about Native Americans of 1850. Like those of today, they would probably applaud restrictions on alcohol and condemn restrictions on their own intoxicants substances. A very simple, first approximation theory of prohibition is that the West conquered the world and restricted intoxicants to its favorite. It was too late to ban coffee and cigarettes (and maybe stimulants are held to different standards), but it banned other drugs as soon as it noticed them.
Sure, people in 1850 had lots of false beliefs. Which ones are relevant to drugs?
That wasn’t the point of the drug example. The point of the drug example was that Eliezer agrees that morality hasn’t gone in an absolute one way direction.
The idea was that in general, more restrictive drugs laws, which became more common in the 20th century, were a step backwards.
A step backwards by what metric?
Without a metric, how is this any different from saying that the fall of monarchies in the 20th century is a step backwards?
You were responding to DI, who asked about Native Americans of 1850. Like those of today, they would probably applaud restrictions on alcohol and condemn restrictions on their own intoxicants substances. A very simple, first approximation theory of prohibition is that the West conquered the world and restricted intoxicants to its favorite. It was too late to ban coffee and cigarettes (and maybe stimulants are held to different standards), but it banned other drugs as soon as it noticed them.
Sure, people in 1850 had lots of false beliefs. Which ones are relevant to drugs?
That wasn’t the point of the drug example. The point of the drug example was that Eliezer agrees that morality hasn’t gone in an absolute one way direction.