4 ms·

Forgive the question, but I'm trying to understand. How is the position you're defending different from "All people are equally responsible for all things"? Fo

Forgive the question, but I'm trying to understand. How is the position you're defending different from "All people are equally responsible for all things"? For example, let's say that my live-in boyfriend confesses to me that he's been sleeping with another man. He has, essentially, no other home. Do all of the following people bear equal responsibility to take him in: me, the man with whom he has been sleeping, and you? Based on your comment, are we all in the same moral boat – none of us are paying to take him in? (Unrelatedly, the phrase "sit at home enjoying pregnancy" may not communicate what you wanted to communicate.)

yummyfajitas 11y ago
My position is that contact with a situation doesn't make you more obligated to assist than someone who had no contact. The details of your obligation, or the second boyfriend's obligation, are entirely based on your mutual agreements and understandings. The really weird thing about the Copenhagen Interpretation is that it imposes an "uncanny valley" of moral virtue. If I ignore a situation and provide 0 help, I'm virtuous. If I help to the tune of K or more, I'm virtuous. But if I provide 0 < R < K help, I'm suddenly a villain. This is just a really weird idea and I can't see any reasonable justification for it.
- chrisoverzero 11y ago
  > […] contact with a situation doesn't make you more obligated to assist than someone who had no contact. This sounds like an answer of all three mentioned people having equal obligation. That is, the second boyfriend could ethically claim, "I have no obligation to take you in – after all, literally anyone else with equal capability could do it instead." If I understand this correctly, then thank you for the clarification.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    That's not quite my view. If the "second boyfriend" relationship is one that normally comes with obligations like taking someone in temporarily, then that second boyfriend is more obligated than other parties. If the other guy is just a NSA hookup, then he's definitely not obligated - such a relationship establishes no such obligation. (I'm not very familiar with the "second boyfriend" relationship, having never actually taken on that role.)

yummyfajitas 11y ago

My position is that contact with a situation doesn't make you more obligated to assist than someone who had no contact. The details of your obligation, or the second boyfriend's obligation, are entirely based on your mutual agreements and understandings. The really weird thing about the Copenhagen Interpretation is that it imposes an "uncanny valley" of moral virtue. If I ignore a situation and provide 0 help, I'm virtuous. If I help to the tune of K or more, I'm virtuous. But if I provide 0 < R < K help, I'm suddenly a villain. This is just a really weird idea and I can't see any reasonable justification for it.

chrisoverzero 11y ago
> […] contact with a situation doesn't make you more obligated to assist than someone who had no contact. This sounds like an answer of all three mentioned people having equal obligation. That is, the second boyfriend could ethically claim, "I have no obligation to take you in – after all, literally anyone else with equal capability could do it instead." If I understand this correctly, then thank you for the clarification.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  That's not quite my view. If the "second boyfriend" relationship is one that normally comes with obligations like taking someone in temporarily, then that second boyfriend is more obligated than other parties. If the other guy is just a NSA hookup, then he's definitely not obligated - such a relationship establishes no such obligation. (I'm not very familiar with the "second boyfriend" relationship, having never actually taken on that role.)