WTF are you talking about.

Interesting that you took this post to be entirely about romantic/sexual relationships, especially since a partner should not be solely responsible for assuaging your lonliness.

Even if everyone had a partner/spouse male loneliness would still be a massive issue because men aren’t socialized in a way that equips them to have emotionally intimate platonic friendships. If my wife was my ONLY friend, I’d still be very lonely. Furthermore, even if I wasn’t in a relationship, I wouldn’t be lonely because of the friends I have.

Is it ok to manipulate them to save their souls?

No, because souls don’t exist.

What about if someone doesn’t want kids, but you know they would be happier with them?

If I actually knew that for a fact then yeah, literally yes that would be ethical. The reason that feels wrong is because there’s literally 0 possible situation in real life where you can be certain about that, and in the vast, vast majority of situations the person saying that is correct about themselves. So in any real-world scenario, it wouldn’t be.

I’d like to clarify that I think the situations where it’s ethical to override a patients agency are not common. In practice I probably agree with you in 99.99% of cases.

But if I was literally omniscient so I knew?

What about giving up sex, drugs, and rock n roll? What about starting sex, drugs, and rock n roll?

Sure. If you had sufficient certainty that you can correctly, by reason alone, identify it as a truth that this would maximize their well being. Like the children example though, I don’t think there’s any real world scenario where you could be.

Yes, people are stupid. And medicine is complicated and difficult to understand. And in systems like American healthcare, there’s a ton of bullshit on top of everything. But it’s very rare to be ok to deny them their agency to make a decision.

I’m not saying we should deny people agency as a rule. Doctors are also failable humans who would make bad decisions if we established as a rule that it’s ok for them to override patient agency.

I’m just saying that even though it’s immoral to establish a culture in the medical system of doing so, individual instances of doing so can absolutely be moral. Probably they should still be condemned anyway to prevent the establishment of such a culture, though.

Of course, IME in the US, it won’t be the patient refusing treatment; it’ll be their insurance company that does so. And if not them, then finances in another form.

If there’s one thing we can confidently conclude is immoral here I agree that it’s insurance companies lmao.

I think thus just boils down to whether you think Kantian or Utilitarian ethics is more correct.

I think it’s not just ok, but morally obligatory to do your best to promote people’s well being, even via manipulation, regardless of if they are hellbent on fucking themselves over. Human beings are deeply, deeply imperfect, and we do not always make good rational decisions. With respect to medical care specifically, if someone refuses something that is objectively a clear benefit regardless of potential unknown context, then they are not doing so rationally, and there’s no good reason to just throw your hands up and give up on them for that.

But in unequal measure with unequal power dynamics.

If AI is even halfway decently aligned with human morals, then it’s gonna do a better job than the ruling class does.

They didn’t convert anything to anything, and the 1.010010001… number isn’t binary

We need to start teaching formal logic in grade schools I’m going insane.

deleted by creator

That’s so elegant. I love it.

Trying to understand theology is a waste of time because it’s all made up.

Made up, sure, but still very useful to understand because so many people believe it.

I’ve run a full DJ setup with speakers, a mixer, soundboard, laptop, etc. off a single line of 6-8 daisy-chained extension cords more times than I can count.

…uh…how have I never learned of this.

In terms of formal logic, this…

Since Pi is infinite and non-repeating, would that mean any finite sequence of non-repeating digits from 0-9 should appear somewhere in Pi in base 10?

…and this…

Does any possible string of infinite non-repeating digits contain every possible finite sequence of non repeating digits?

are equivalent statements.

The phrase “since X, would that mean Y” is the same as asking “is X a sufficient condition for Y”. Providing ANY example of X WITHOUT Y is a counter-example which proves X is NOT a sufficient condition.

The 1.010010001… example is literally one that is taught in classes to disprove OPs exact hypothesis. This isn’t a discussion where we’re both offering different perspectives and working towards a truth we don’t both see, thus is a discussion where you’re factually wrong and I’m trying to help you learn why lol.

Its not stupid. To disprove a claim that states “All X have Y” then you only need ONE example. So, as pick a really obvious example.

Why make it a right vs left thing at all. Can’t we just discuss things going on as they are without pigeonholing certain opinions as “right” and “left?”

I don’t think x y z thing is true because I’m “on the left.” I think it’s true because it’s my best understanding of reality, and that understanding of reality is generally described as “left.” If you falsify my arguments, point flaws in my understanding, or present me with a set of premises that corroborates reality better, I’ll align myself with that in a heartbeat. When you see something you disagree with, don’t just think “oh that’s leftism I don’t agree with that,” instead, try to figure out what you think the flaw is with it, and then offer that up in good faith. Worst case scenario, someone learns something.