←back to thread

The shrimp welfare project

(benthams.substack.com)
81 points 0xDEAFBEAD | 1 comments | 18 Nov 24 14:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
erostrate ◴[18 Nov 24 15:27 UTC] No.42173218[source]▶
Did the author factor in the impact of this kind of article on the external perception of the rationalist / utilitarian / EA community when weighing the utility of publishing this?

Should you push arguments that seem ridiculously unacceptable to the vast majority of people, thereby reducing the weight of more acceptable arguments you could possibly make?

replies(4): >>42173285 #>>42173338 #>>42173753 #>>42177536 #
sodality2 ◴[18 Nov 24 15:32 UTC] No.42173285[source]▶
Should we stop making logically sound but unpalatable arguments?
replies(1): >>42173361 #
erostrate ◴[18 Nov 24 15:38 UTC] No.42173361[source]▶
How palatable an argument is determines its actual impact. It's not logical to spend effort making arguments that are so unpalatable that they will just make people ignore you.
replies(1): >>42173415 #
1. sodality2 ◴[18 Nov 24 15:42 UTC] No.42173415[source]▶
Deontologically, maybe it's principally better to make an argument you know you can't refute. Maybe even just to try to convince yourself otherwise.

I know the person making this argument isn't necessarily aligned with deontology. Maybe that was your original point.