Normal and sane contain a bunch of hidden normative claims about your goals. Fwiw I agree that the suggestions on Aella’s post go overboard, but if I had endured the abuse she had maybe I wouldn’t.
My point is that without saying something like “I think it’s better to have a bit higher chance of being abused and a smaller chance of ignoring good advice” you can’t make normative claims → they imply some criteria that others may not agree with. It’s worth trying to tease out what you’re optimizing for with your normative suggestions.
It seems to me that the key difference between Said and Aella is that Aella basically says: “If you go into a group and interact in an emotional vulnerable way, you should expect receprocity in emotional vulnerability.” On the other hand Said says “Don’t go into groups and be emotionally vulnerable”.
Normal and sane contain a bunch of hidden normative claims about your goals.
Like what, do you think?
Fwiw I agree that the suggestions on Aella’s post go overboard, but if I had endured the abuse she had maybe I wouldn’t.
But it does not follow from this that you would therefore be right to take this view.
My point is that without saying something like “I think it’s better to have a bit higher chance of being abused and a smaller chance of ignoring good advice” you can’t make normative claims → they imply some criteria that others may not agree with.
I agree that if your view includes goals like the quoted one, you should make this explicit.
But it does not follow from this that you would therefore be right to take this view.
Unless you’ve solved the Is/Ought distinction, it doesn’t follow from any fact that it’s right to take a certain view (at best, you can state that given a certain set of goals, virtues, etc, different behaviors are more coherent or useful), that’s why it’s important to state your ethical assumptions/goals up front.
Like what, do you think?
I don’t know, from previous comments I think you value truth a lot but it’d really be better for you to state your values than me.
Normal and sane contain a bunch of hidden normative claims about your goals. Fwiw I agree that the suggestions on Aella’s post go overboard, but if I had endured the abuse she had maybe I wouldn’t.
My point is that without saying something like “I think it’s better to have a bit higher chance of being abused and a smaller chance of ignoring good advice” you can’t make normative claims → they imply some criteria that others may not agree with. It’s worth trying to tease out what you’re optimizing for with your normative suggestions.
It seems to me that the key difference between Said and Aella is that Aella basically says: “If you go into a group and interact in an emotional vulnerable way, you should expect receprocity in emotional vulnerability.” On the other hand Said says “Don’t go into groups and be emotionally vulnerable”.
Aella is pro-Circling, Said is anti-Circling.
Like what, do you think?
But it does not follow from this that you would therefore be right to take this view.
I agree that if your view includes goals like the quoted one, you should make this explicit.
Unless you’ve solved the Is/Ought distinction, it doesn’t follow from any fact that it’s right to take a certain view (at best, you can state that given a certain set of goals, virtues, etc, different behaviors are more coherent or useful), that’s why it’s important to state your ethical assumptions/goals up front.
I don’t know, from previous comments I think you value truth a lot but it’d really be better for you to state your values than me.