Possibly orthogonal to this discussion but possibly also useful information for future discussions: There seems to be an assertion that one group of sapients should or will necessarily accept arbitrary moral assertions made by another group of sapients*. This is so farfetched as to be incredibly distracting.
* never mind getting the members of the second group to accept the arbitrary moral assertion.
Hang on. I’m a “group” of sapients (a group of one, but a group). Everyone else is another group. Are you saying that I will never be convinced, or should never be convinced, by moral philosophy written by someone else?
And why call the assertions arbitrary? The humans in the story seem to share axioms like “pain is bad, cet par” with the Martians. Neither side is Clippy here.
Possibly orthogonal to this discussion but possibly also useful information for future discussions: There seems to be an assertion that one group of sapients should or will necessarily accept arbitrary moral assertions made by another group of sapients*. This is so farfetched as to be incredibly distracting.
* never mind getting the members of the second group to accept the arbitrary moral assertion.
Hang on. I’m a “group” of sapients (a group of one, but a group). Everyone else is another group. Are you saying that I will never be convinced, or should never be convinced, by moral philosophy written by someone else?
And why call the assertions arbitrary? The humans in the story seem to share axioms like “pain is bad, cet par” with the Martians. Neither side is Clippy here.
No, but no one said anything about the Martians being convinced, or about the Martians being entitled to offer any opinion at all.
Because they are about how other people than the ones making the assertions should behave.