And I do not consider wanting a genocide to happen rather than the Nuremberg trials to be the sign of someone who would be a moderating force on active vengeance and violence (e.g. around the Zajko parents’ double-homicide). Though perhaps the other people around her were more violent still.
Added: I see that I read your comment too quickly (for I am very tired today), and it was not logically inconsistent with her statement. However the point still stands that if she (and you, for that matter) would prefer if the 1900s involved an extra vigilante genocide, then this is a straightforward sign that you will support future unlawful murder, mass murder, and other horrors, and aren’t safe people to be around.
I’m not sure this argument holds at all. I think this is biased because we already know some people in the group have the ability to turn consideration into violence… generally speaking if somebody endorses torture in torture vs dust specks, or pulling the lever in the trolley problem, I would still not worry at all about them torturing me or arranging for me to be killed so that my organs can save two other people. Most moral consideration on big-picture problems occurs in a different universe from everyday behavior, or many rationalists—maybe the median rationalist! - would be considered deeply unsafe people rather than the highly safe people they are in reality.
And I do not consider wanting a genocide to happen rather than the Nuremberg trials to be the sign of someone who would be a moderating force on active vengeance and violence (e.g. around the Zajko parents’ double-homicide). Though perhaps the other people around her were more violent still.
Added: I see that I read your comment too quickly (for I am very tired today), and it was not logically inconsistent with her statement. However the point still stands that if she (and you, for that matter) would prefer if the 1900s involved an extra vigilante genocide, then this is a straightforward sign that you will support future unlawful murder, mass murder, and other horrors, and aren’t safe people to be around.
I’m not sure this argument holds at all. I think this is biased because we already know some people in the group have the ability to turn consideration into violence… generally speaking if somebody endorses torture in torture vs dust specks, or pulling the lever in the trolley problem, I would still not worry at all about them torturing me or arranging for me to be killed so that my organs can save two other people. Most moral consideration on big-picture problems occurs in a different universe from everyday behavior, or many rationalists—maybe the median rationalist! - would be considered deeply unsafe people rather than the highly safe people they are in reality.