Comment by latexr

Comment by latexr 2 days ago

Why do you get to decide it is? The onus of proof is on the one making the claim.

I guess someone could also repeatedly bash you over the head with a tire iron and break your legs, and when criticised reply “how do you know their purpose isn’t to get hurt?”

“Well, when I approached them to hit them, they cowered in fear, asked for mercy, and tried to flee.”

“Your attempt to evoke an emotion doesn’t answer the question though. How do you know their purpose is not to be ravaged?”

fragmede 2 days ago

> They are, and you don’t kill them or harm them to eat the things they produce with the purpose of being eaten and spread.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43113489

Reply View 1 reply

latexr 2 days ago

There is a chasm of difference between your purpose and the purpose of something you do.
If you build a chair, the purpose of doing so could be to sit or to earn money by selling it. We can derive exactly which from your actions and the outcomes, but there is still an identifiable purpose. However, it is entirely different to claim your purpose is to build chairs.
Similarly, in my previous example someone can hit someone else with the purpose of harming them, but it doesn’t mean that person’s purpose is to cause harm.
Do you see the difference? I do kind of feel like I’m discussing middle school philosophy here. I surely hope that is not my purpose. This whole conversation was unnecessary with a tiny bit of steel manning on your part, don’t you think? Does it truly seem reasonable to you to claim an entire species’ purpose is to do something they do not only not pursue but actively avoid? I’m confident you are able to see the point by now.

Reply View | 0 replies