3 ms·

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 w

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

> (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.