Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Antifragility: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Ethical implications
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Ethical implications== | ==Ethical implications== | ||
Antifragility can be used to justify any kind of moderate adversity, e.g. some kinds of celibacy such as premarital chastity could count as moderate adversity. However, moderate adversity may still be associated with an economic cost, as well as a cost of safety and societal cohesion in the near-term (see [[adverse effects of inceldom]]), which may cancel out its long-term positive effect. Generally, resilience and steeling suggests an extremely wide range of practices within bounds of moderate adversity have beneficial or neutral effect on the flourishing of a society as long as they do not interfere with the economy, societal cohesion etc. | Antifragility can be used to justify any kind of moderate adversity, e.g. some kinds of celibacy such as premarital chastity could count as moderate adversity. However, moderate adversity may still be associated with an economic cost, as well as a cost of safety and societal cohesion in the near-term (see [[adverse effects of inceldom]]), which may cancel out its long-term positive effect. Generally, resilience and steeling suggests an extremely wide range of practices within bounds of moderate adversity have beneficial or neutral effect on the flourishing of a society as long as they do not interfere with the economy, societal cohesion etc. | ||
Arguably politically motivated moral panics about rape and related issues contribute to dividing the population over negligible or non-existent issues and could hence be regarded as being opposed to social harmony. | |||
== References == | == References == | ||