3 ms·

It's very much a thing. Coldtea explicitly said he's not responsible for the pregnant woman "because I'm not making money off of her", implying that if he were

It's very much a thing. Coldtea explicitly said he's not responsible for the pregnant woman "because I'm not making money off of her", implying that if he were to observe/interact with her he would be responsible. Retra did the same thing. That's by definition the Copenhagen interpretation of ethics. If you want to make a different argument that does not depend on the Copenhagen interpretation, go for it. The fact that you can make a different argument doesn't mean that others (e.g. coldtea) aren't using Copenhagen.

pron 11y ago
> It's very much a thing. The author states his definition as "the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it." No one subscribes to that ethics, hence it's not a thing (anywhere outside's the author's distorted view of others, that is). OTOH, saying that the level of your responsibility for another individual may correlate with the benefit they give you (e.g. you make a profit) seems like a reasonable thing. It seems quite reasonable to believe that our responsibility towards the other may increase if 1/ we somehow contributed to their misfortune, 2/ if we somehow benefit from it, or 3/ if we benefit from them in any way at all. Each of these may of course increase the responsibility by different amounts. Points 2 and 3 seem like a natural conclusion of the ideal of fairness and reciprocity. Your contribution to the good of others should be commensurate with their contribution to yours. > Coldtea explicitly said he's not responsible for the pregnant woman "because I'm not making money off of her", implying that if he were to observe/interact with her he would be responsible. No, that's what you explicitly said when you tried hard to not understand other people's arguments. coldtea said no such thing. coldtea said that they wouldn't pay for the woman's maternity leave, not that their responsibility towards her is nil. coldtea's level of responsibility simply does not reach the point of owing her maternity leave.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Me: "Near as I can tell, you, me and Markhor are all in the same moral boat..." Coldtea: "Only, one of us [the employer] has used the $x an hour work of that woman up to that point..." If you want to argue that coldtea isn't making a moral argument as to why he isn't responsible, be my guest. I don't think my interpretation is unreasonable. It seems quite reasonable to believe that our responsibility towards the other may increase if 1/ we somehow contributed to their misfortune, 2/ if we somehow benefit from it, or 3/ if we benefit from them in any way at all. (2) and (3) are exactly what the author is calling the Copenhagen Interpretation. I thought this wasn't a thing?
  - pron 11y ago
    > (2) and (3) are exactly what the author is calling the Copenhagen Interpretation. That is not the case. Let me state it clearly. He says: interaction => blame We say: profit => increased responsibility No one blames the interactor for the origin of the problem, nor does anyone demand increased responsibility if the interactor doesn't benefit from the interaction in any way. No one even asks for a level of responsibility that far exceeds the benefit. The author's view is known as the non-worseness claim, which is often described by those who are more generous towards it as "free floating evil". Those who are less generous, view it in worse ways, of course. BTW, the criticism of homeless experiment does seem stupid, but I don't know the details. Also, the critic may not have actually made a moral argument (even if he tried to frame it as such). For all I know he's a politician who opposes the mayor and would use any argument at all against him, even if he doesn't really believe it.
    - jasode 11y ago
      >He says: [...] We say: [...] But you're just rewording it with synonyms in hopes of avoiding the application of the Copenhagen Interpretation to your/coldtea's post. "interaction" == "profit" ... because the blog author was already talking about "interaction" in terms of monetary benefits. "blame" == "increased responsibility" ... because the author already wrote "At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more." and "doing more" is what increased responsibility is. Whether we use other synonyms such as "profit", "economic gains", "saving time", "outsourcing tedious work", etc, it doesn't matter. Likewise, using synonyms such as "blame", "responsibility", "burden", "cross to bear", "moral debt", etc, doesn't change the interpretation.
      - pron 11y ago
        If the author means what I mean, then he does a very bad job countering the good arguments in favor of profit => increased responsibility (i.e. against mutually beneficial exploitation), while at the same time he portrays a very important ethical standpoint -- one held by many of those who devote their lives to the study of ethics -- as ridiculous. Why? I suspect that's because he never bothered to read any of the serious discussions on this issue, so he's arguing out of ignorance. I don't think that paints his arguments in any better light.

pron 11y ago

> It's very much a thing. The author states his definition as "the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it." No one subscribes to that ethics, hence it's not a thing (anywhere outside's the author's distorted view of others, that is). OTOH, saying that the level of your responsibility for another individual may correlate with the benefit they give you (e.g. you make a profit) seems like a reasonable thing. It seems quite reasonable to believe that our responsibility towards the other may increase if 1/ we somehow contributed to their misfortune, 2/ if we somehow benefit from it, or 3/ if we benefit from them in any way at all. Each of these may of course increase the responsibility by different amounts. Points 2 and 3 seem like a natural conclusion of the ideal of fairness and reciprocity. Your contribution to the good of others should be commensurate with their contribution to yours. > Coldtea explicitly said he's not responsible for the pregnant woman "because I'm not making money off of her", implying that if he were to observe/interact with her he would be responsible. No, that's what you explicitly said when you tried hard to not understand other people's arguments. coldtea said no such thing. coldtea said that they wouldn't pay for the woman's maternity leave, not that their responsibility towards her is nil. coldtea's level of responsibility simply does not reach the point of owing her maternity leave.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Me: "Near as I can tell, you, me and Markhor are all in the same moral boat..." Coldtea: "Only, one of us [the employer] has used the $x an hour work of that woman up to that point..." If you want to argue that coldtea isn't making a moral argument as to why he isn't responsible, be my guest. I don't think my interpretation is unreasonable. It seems quite reasonable to believe that our responsibility towards the other may increase if 1/ we somehow contributed to their misfortune, 2/ if we somehow benefit from it, or 3/ if we benefit from them in any way at all. (2) and (3) are exactly what the author is calling the Copenhagen Interpretation. I thought this wasn't a thing?
- pron 11y ago
  > (2) and (3) are exactly what the author is calling the Copenhagen Interpretation. That is not the case. Let me state it clearly. He says: interaction => blame We say: profit => increased responsibility No one blames the interactor for the origin of the problem, nor does anyone demand increased responsibility if the interactor doesn't benefit from the interaction in any way. No one even asks for a level of responsibility that far exceeds the benefit. The author's view is known as the non-worseness claim, which is often described by those who are more generous towards it as "free floating evil". Those who are less generous, view it in worse ways, of course. BTW, the criticism of homeless experiment does seem stupid, but I don't know the details. Also, the critic may not have actually made a moral argument (even if he tried to frame it as such). For all I know he's a politician who opposes the mayor and would use any argument at all against him, even if he doesn't really believe it.
  - jasode 11y ago
    >He says: [...] We say: [...] But you're just rewording it with synonyms in hopes of avoiding the application of the Copenhagen Interpretation to your/coldtea's post. "interaction" == "profit" ... because the blog author was already talking about "interaction" in terms of monetary benefits. "blame" == "increased responsibility" ... because the author already wrote "At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more." and "doing more" is what increased responsibility is. Whether we use other synonyms such as "profit", "economic gains", "saving time", "outsourcing tedious work", etc, it doesn't matter. Likewise, using synonyms such as "blame", "responsibility", "burden", "cross to bear", "moral debt", etc, doesn't change the interpretation.
    - pron 11y ago
      If the author means what I mean, then he does a very bad job countering the good arguments in favor of profit => increased responsibility (i.e. against mutually beneficial exploitation), while at the same time he portrays a very important ethical standpoint -- one held by many of those who devote their lives to the study of ethics -- as ridiculous. Why? I suspect that's because he never bothered to read any of the serious discussions on this issue, so he's arguing out of ignorance. I don't think that paints his arguments in any better light.