Skip to content

Details

Welcome to our regular meetup! We talk about rationality, thinking, reasoning, relationships, science, math, economics, technology, and everything else. If you're interested in thinking and talking about ideas we'd love to hear what's on your mind. We love to share ideas, discuss, debate, learn and grow together. Don't worry about being the "right" kind of person - you most definitely are. Please join us!

Let's discuss how we draw the line between "this is bad" and "this should be illegal." We'll use Scott Alexander's axiology/morality/law distinction as a starting framework and look at the question from a few angles: Does the state have a legitimate interest in preventing "moral decay" even when no one is directly harmed? What happens when you try to legislate against victimless behaviors like drug use, pornography, or sexual practices the majority disapproves of? Is the harm principle a good Schelling fence, or does it have its own problems?

Primary reading:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/28/contra-askell-on-moral-offsets/

Supplementary readings:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Kbm6QnJv9dgWsPHQP/schelling-fences-on-slippery-slopes
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-limits/

Also related but only if you're really interested:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-the-righteous-mind

Related topics

You may also like