What? Did we really have an article disproving the theory of relativity using moral argumentation in Main, without it getting immediately heavily downvoted?
One man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens.
In other words, even if this is completely correct, it doesn’t disprove relativity. Rather, it disproves either relativity or most versions of utilitarianism—pick one.
In other words, even if this is completely correct, it doesn’t disprove relativity. Rather, it disproves either relativity or most versions of utilitarianism—pick one.
It seems like all it shows is that we ought to keep our utility functions Lorentz-invariant. Or, more generally, when we talk about consequentialist ethics, we should only consider consequences that don’t depend on aspects of the observer that we consider irrelevant.
Moved to Discussion.
What? Did we really have an article disproving the theory of relativity using moral argumentation in Main, without it getting immediately heavily downvoted?
I can’t even
One man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens.
In other words, even if this is completely correct, it doesn’t disprove relativity. Rather, it disproves either relativity or most versions of utilitarianism—pick one.
It seems like all it shows is that we ought to keep our utility functions Lorentz-invariant. Or, more generally, when we talk about consequentialist ethics, we should only consider consequences that don’t depend on aspects of the observer that we consider irrelevant.
You must even!