cephalopod (deprecated)

been tending toward a moral(?) framework that emphasizes
* radical consent
* respecting autonomy
* epistemic humility

comes together into something like "a person is the ultimate authority on what is good for them. this cannot be known from the outside, so affirmative consent is needed before 'helping' them."

the individual components are all good things that people generally don't emphasize enough imo, but I'm feeling limitations, too.

friction points:
* sometimes, knowledge is possible. it's even possible to know things relevant to someone's situation that they do not.

* no one is truly autonomous; we are social and our extended intelligence includes other minds

* (consent) decisions can have nontrivial cognitive, emotional, and social costs. demanding them before acting externalizes that cost

Apr 3, 2022 at 12:57pmWeb
Show thread"Colin"Apr 3, 2022
@octopus except for in-the-moment/time critical decisions like “do you require CPR”, the last point can be improved by leveraging select mediums. posting you lawn service flyer on the neighborhood’s bulletin board instead of selling it door-to-door (if we were in a time where both of those were still relevant): one’s an “opt-in” interaction for the recipient while the other is “opt-out”.

actually, any sort of regular, social conversation between peers is an information sharing process. if you’re purposeful with the casual conversations you find yourself in you can learn/communicate enough to reduce the future burden of many decisions without being intrusive.