This is a reply to an FI post.
-----------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [FI] TCS article says parent should coerce himself to avoid coercing child
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Elliot Temple <curi@curi.us> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2015, at 7:58 AM, Erin Minter <erinminter@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 1, 2015, at 9:40 AM, Rami Rustom rombomb@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://web.archive.org/web/20000302065850/http://www.tcs.ac/FAQ/FAQTheoryMorality.html
>>>
>>>> Parents are morally obliged to help their children, while the children have no “balancing” obligation to obey their parents.
>>>>
>>>> TCS advocates certain asymmetries in how parents and children should treat each other, namely:
>>>>
>>>> • Parents are morally obliged to support their children, while the children have no “balancing” obligation to obey their parents.
>>>>
>>>> • In the event of failing to find a common preference, parents give way to their children.
>>>
>>> Are the parent and child in agreement about what should be done? If so, it *is* a common preference.
>>
>> No, i think the point is there was a failure to find a common pref.
>
> If they both prefer to follow this guideline, it IS a common preference. (And the guideline is kinda misleading/confusing, but what it actually means is they didn’t find a CP prior to resorting to this guideline.)
>
> If they anyone doesn’t prefer to use this guideline, but they do anyway, then it isn’t a CP. And that’s bad!!
>
>
> One problem with this guideline is there is no such thing as a situation where you’re like, “oh we didn’t find a CP, now what?”. There is no point at which you know you’ve failed or should give up. The situation is always, “We don’t have a CP yet, but may find one soon.”
>
> Another problem with the rule is is can easily be taken as a recipe for self-sacrifice, rather than a strategy for finding a CP when things are going badly.
>
> The intended point of the guideline is that when disaster looms, parents should be willing to adjust to get a CP instead of a disaster. More than their kids. Like if someone isn’t going to get their initial preference and has to change their preference, AND it’s a situation that is going exceptionally badly, THEN parent should drop his initial preference and focus on getting a non-disaster result. Parent should absolutely not say to kid, “Look I’d love to get you that thing you want normally, but we’re having a rough day, so just give in this time.” That’d be backwards.
Yes.
So let's say there's a disagreement between parent and child about how to proceed. Parent wants idea A and child wants conflicting idea B. And parent wasn't able to convince child to change child's mind about idea B. Then, instead of coercing child to go against idea B, parent should CHANGE HIS OWN MIND to idea B and then act on it.
In this way, the parent acted on idea B without any other conflicting ideas being active in his mind right now. Idea A got rejected. It's no longer in play. So nobody is coerced. Nobody is sacrificing.
An alternative way is to self-sacrifice. That means the parent chooses to act on idea B WHILE NOT HAVING CHANGED HIS MIND about idea A. So the parent acts on idea B while still wanting the conflicting idea A. So the parent is sacrificing idea A. Hence self-sacrifice. So the parent is tcs-coerced.
Actually this might be confusing. In the non-coercion example, the parent and child aren't actually acting on idea B. They are acting on another idea (call it idea C) that has within it idea B, and it also has information about why they are doing this. They are doing it in order to not coerce child. Idea B alone does not contain this extra and necessary information. And since parent wholeheartedly agrees with acting on idea C, meaning that he doesn't have any objections to it, then he's not coerced. He's not self-sacrificing.
-- Rami
-----------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: [FI] TCS article says parent should coerce himself to avoid coercing child
-----------------------------------------------------
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Elliot Temple <curi@curi.us> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2015, at 7:58 AM, Erin Minter <erinminter@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 1, 2015, at 9:40 AM, Rami Rustom rombomb@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallible-ideas@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://web.archive.org/web/20000302065850/http://www.tcs.ac/FAQ/FAQTheoryMorality.html
>>>
>>>> Parents are morally obliged to help their children, while the children have no “balancing” obligation to obey their parents.
>>>>
>>>> TCS advocates certain asymmetries in how parents and children should treat each other, namely:
>>>>
>>>> • Parents are morally obliged to support their children, while the children have no “balancing” obligation to obey their parents.
>>>>
>>>> • In the event of failing to find a common preference, parents give way to their children.
>>>
>>> Are the parent and child in agreement about what should be done? If so, it *is* a common preference.
>>
>> No, i think the point is there was a failure to find a common pref.
>
> If they both prefer to follow this guideline, it IS a common preference. (And the guideline is kinda misleading/confusing, but what it actually means is they didn’t find a CP prior to resorting to this guideline.)
>
> If they anyone doesn’t prefer to use this guideline, but they do anyway, then it isn’t a CP. And that’s bad!!
>
>
> One problem with this guideline is there is no such thing as a situation where you’re like, “oh we didn’t find a CP, now what?”. There is no point at which you know you’ve failed or should give up. The situation is always, “We don’t have a CP yet, but may find one soon.”
>
> Another problem with the rule is is can easily be taken as a recipe for self-sacrifice, rather than a strategy for finding a CP when things are going badly.
>
> The intended point of the guideline is that when disaster looms, parents should be willing to adjust to get a CP instead of a disaster. More than their kids. Like if someone isn’t going to get their initial preference and has to change their preference, AND it’s a situation that is going exceptionally badly, THEN parent should drop his initial preference and focus on getting a non-disaster result. Parent should absolutely not say to kid, “Look I’d love to get you that thing you want normally, but we’re having a rough day, so just give in this time.” That’d be backwards.
Yes.
So let's say there's a disagreement between parent and child about how to proceed. Parent wants idea A and child wants conflicting idea B. And parent wasn't able to convince child to change child's mind about idea B. Then, instead of coercing child to go against idea B, parent should CHANGE HIS OWN MIND to idea B and then act on it.
In this way, the parent acted on idea B without any other conflicting ideas being active in his mind right now. Idea A got rejected. It's no longer in play. So nobody is coerced. Nobody is sacrificing.
An alternative way is to self-sacrifice. That means the parent chooses to act on idea B WHILE NOT HAVING CHANGED HIS MIND about idea A. So the parent acts on idea B while still wanting the conflicting idea A. So the parent is sacrificing idea A. Hence self-sacrifice. So the parent is tcs-coerced.
Actually this might be confusing. In the non-coercion example, the parent and child aren't actually acting on idea B. They are acting on another idea (call it idea C) that has within it idea B, and it also has information about why they are doing this. They are doing it in order to not coerce child. Idea B alone does not contain this extra and necessary information. And since parent wholeheartedly agrees with acting on idea C, meaning that he doesn't have any objections to it, then he's not coerced. He's not self-sacrificing.
-- Rami
No comments:
Post a Comment