3 ms·
My (not-so-charitable) interpretation of their position: Sometimes being a jerk and helping a little is the best way to help people. Therefore, you can always
by powera 11y ago
My (not-so-charitable) interpretation of their position: Sometimes being a jerk and helping a little is the best way to help people. Therefore, you can always be a jerk and only help people a little.
I'm obviously committing a logical fallacy, but I think they are as well. Sometimes when you do something, there are negative consequences as well as positive ones. And if you aggressively count the positive ones and ignore the negative ones, you really aren't helping.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoI think your interpretation here is missing the same point most of critical comments here are - the article is not advocating generalizing doing a little as a global moral axiom. Instead, the article is concerned about the problem people (unconsciously) subscribing to Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics cause - by criticizing everyone who does a little (thus inteacting with the problem) instead of not doing anything at all, they're creating an atmosphere where someone who wants to help will be afraid their help will not be enough and will trigger criticism, so it's more likely they'll choose to ignore the opportunity to do good. It's not "doing little" vs. "doing a lot", but "doing as much as we can" vs. "not doing anything, because 'as much as we can' won't be enough to avoid the hate".