I'm not especially familiar with all the literature involved here, so forgive me if this is somehow repetitive.
However, I was wondering if having two lists might be more preferable. Naturally, there would be non-whitelisted objects (do not interfere with these in any way). Second, there could be objects which are fine to manipulate but must retain functional integrity (for instance, a book can be freely manipulated under most circumstances; however, it cannot be moved so it becomes out of reach or illegible, and should not be moved or obstructed while...
I'm wondering what your argument is that insisting on the existence of moral facts is *not* a (self-)deceptive way of "picking norms based on what someone prefer[s]" in such a way as to make them appear objective, rather than arbitrary.
Even supposing moral facts do exist, it does not follow that humans can, would, or could know them, correct? Therefore, the actual implementation would still fall back on preferences.
> Important detail: the whitelist is only with respect to transitions between objects, not the object themselves!
I understand the technical and semantic distinction here, but I'm not sure I understand the practical one, when it comes to actual behaviour and results. Is there a situation you have in mind where the two approaches would be notably different in outcome?
> Something I'm not sure about is whether the described dissimilarity will map up with our intuitive notions of dissimilarity. I think it's doable, whether via my formulati... (read more)