I don’t know how a personal value judgement fits in with your talk about a “burden of justification.” Why should someone feel the need to justify against your personal value judgement that change is bad? They simply have a different value judgement than you.
Why should someone feel the need to justify against your personal value judgement that change is bad?
Certainly they should not—unless, of course, that value judgment is not idiosyncratic, but common, or near-universal. It seems to me that this is so. You may disagree. In any case, justification is needed to the extent that said value judgment is shared by those affected by, or those evaluating, any change.
That makes sense. I think I was tripped up by your use of the words “is” and “bad”, both of which are ambiguous. Things that might have helped me get your meaning are swapping “is” for “feels”, swapping “bad” for “aversive” or “unpleasant”, and adding the qualifier “for me” or “for many people”.
Of course, if you were under the impression that this is a near universal aversion, it makes less sense to make any of those changes. I suspect that that assumption also underlies the miscommunication of why people didn’t address the “change is aversive” objection in the original post as well—they typical-mind fallacied that change was neutral or good, and you did the reverse.
I don’t know how a personal value judgement fits in with your talk about a “burden of justification.” Why should someone feel the need to justify against your personal value judgement that change is bad? They simply have a different value judgement than you.
Certainly they should not—unless, of course, that value judgment is not idiosyncratic, but common, or near-universal. It seems to me that this is so. You may disagree. In any case, justification is needed to the extent that said value judgment is shared by those affected by, or those evaluating, any change.
That makes sense. I think I was tripped up by your use of the words “is” and “bad”, both of which are ambiguous. Things that might have helped me get your meaning are swapping “is” for “feels”, swapping “bad” for “aversive” or “unpleasant”, and adding the qualifier “for me” or “for many people”.
Of course, if you were under the impression that this is a near universal aversion, it makes less sense to make any of those changes. I suspect that that assumption also underlies the miscommunication of why people didn’t address the “change is aversive” objection in the original post as well—they typical-mind fallacied that change was neutral or good, and you did the reverse.