Good article, Amos. One of the things that I like about the streamer destiny is his openness to debating literally anyone about almost any topic. Destiny has said how "not debating" and continuous deplatforming of people that progressives dislike makes progressives likely to become bad debaters because they don't have much experience in debating which can actually legitimize awful far right nationalists because they can claim victory based on "i was silenced by the woke mob. They can't handle the truth."
By the way, I wrote my first substack post on a pretty serious topic. Check it out!
While the moralizing critics are silly, I don't think "the intuition behind Hendricks’s principle is ironclad." Whether it benefits you to prevent you from doing something wrong might depend upon whether you would (expectably) regret your wrongdoing. Examples like drunk driving, murder, etc., all seem like pretty typically-regretted acts. But plenty of other acts of wrongdoing aren't so often regretted, and don't seem to make the agent worse-off.
I doubt that the civil war benefitted white slaveowners, for example, even though it stopped them from doing something awful. More prosaically, I don't think that banning meat would benefit most burger-loving Americans, even though most of their meat purchases are wrong. Abortion seems like eating meat: something that, even if it is wrong, isn't widely *considered* to be wrong, and so isn't obviously "beneficial" to the agent to remove it from their option set.
Good article, Amos. One of the things that I like about the streamer destiny is his openness to debating literally anyone about almost any topic. Destiny has said how "not debating" and continuous deplatforming of people that progressives dislike makes progressives likely to become bad debaters because they don't have much experience in debating which can actually legitimize awful far right nationalists because they can claim victory based on "i was silenced by the woke mob. They can't handle the truth."
By the way, I wrote my first substack post on a pretty serious topic. Check it out!
https://rajatsirkanungo.substack.com/p/a-post-to-my-friend-ives?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
One of the greatest articles written perhaps in the history of the world.
While the moralizing critics are silly, I don't think "the intuition behind Hendricks’s principle is ironclad." Whether it benefits you to prevent you from doing something wrong might depend upon whether you would (expectably) regret your wrongdoing. Examples like drunk driving, murder, etc., all seem like pretty typically-regretted acts. But plenty of other acts of wrongdoing aren't so often regretted, and don't seem to make the agent worse-off.
I doubt that the civil war benefitted white slaveowners, for example, even though it stopped them from doing something awful. More prosaically, I don't think that banning meat would benefit most burger-loving Americans, even though most of their meat purchases are wrong. Abortion seems like eating meat: something that, even if it is wrong, isn't widely *considered* to be wrong, and so isn't obviously "beneficial" to the agent to remove it from their option set.