6 ms·
I actually subscribe to this "Copenhagen interpretation". If you profit by making lopsided deals with people who have no other options, you still have an ethica
by cousin_it 11y ago
I actually subscribe to this "Copenhagen interpretation". If you profit by making lopsided deals with people who have no other options, you still have an ethical obligation to offer more fair deals. The definition of fairness shouldn't be left up to the market, that would be a case of the is-ought fallacy (assuming that the output of some external process is ethical by definition).
- SilasX 11y agoAre you sure you're not equating: A) "It would be [more] ethical to offer a better deal." with B) "The person offering this deal is ethically worse than those who never interacted at all." You can endorse A) without endorsing B), and it's B that the author is criticizing (as the CIE).
- cousin_it 11y agoIf the deal is bad enough, I do endorse B.
- loup-vaillant 11y agoIt seems to me the examples showed instances of people who are seen interacting with a problem. The real idea there is, if nobody sees you interacting with the problem, then you get off the hook. But the thing is, merely becoming aware of a problem puts some ethical burden to solve it —or at least solve some other, more important problem. On the other hand, it would be a bit dangerous to vilify people for not doing their best. That tend to cause its own sets of problems, up to and including totalitarianism.