A core question in this case is: “What do we gain from defining blackmail in a way that this example is covered? What do we gain from defining it in a way that this isn’t covered?”
The way the opening post is written it doesn’t ask the question: “Should we consider this behavior blackmail?” but takes it for granted that the answer to that question is “Yes”.
Shutting off questions like that is quite typical for how politics mindkilling works. “Boo, evil prosecutors”
That’s the point of formalizing intuitions. He has a preexisting category, and he’s trying to find the rule which formally describes what goes in the category. In order to do that you have to take for granted that certain things are and aren’t in the category. If you didn’t have a preexisting caregory there would be no reason to do it.
We’re trying to formalize our intuitions.
The way the opening post is written it doesn’t ask the question: “Should we consider this behavior blackmail?” but takes it for granted that the answer to that question is “Yes”.
Shutting off questions like that is quite typical for how politics mindkilling works. “Boo, evil prosecutors”
That’s the point of formalizing intuitions. He has a preexisting category, and he’s trying to find the rule which formally describes what goes in the category. In order to do that you have to take for granted that certain things are and aren’t in the category. If you didn’t have a preexisting caregory there would be no reason to do it.