6 ms·

It seems to me that your reasoning comes from not caring about an increased turnover of potential effects on human lives (one such effect being death). It's qu

It seems to me that your reasoning comes from not caring about an increased turnover of potential effects on human lives (one such effect being death). It's quite Mendelian an attitude, and frankly I fear people who share your view - advancement at the cost of "breaking a few eggs" - a line not unlike what you'd hear from an evil villain in a movie, or, sadly, 2017 hackernews.

Chris2048 9y ago
Except lots of eggs get broken today as a matter of course. If a technology saves lives, losing them to get it quicker might be a matter of balance.
- theprotocol 9y ago
  Not being able to help someone is ethically superior to risking killing someone in order to help someone else. You're not the one who gave the former cancer, but you are the one who imperiled the latter.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    Isn't that just self concern? You can't be linked personally as the cause of negative consequence, so you want to remain divorced from it. In the extreme, a small girl was run over in china, and no one stopped to help. Can they be blamed? They were not the cause...
    - theprotocol 9y ago
      It's not self concern, it's called ethics. It's not about "being linked to the action," it's simply that one situation involves someone going out of their way to imperil people, and that is simply unethical behavior. It's not about me, it's about anyone who does that. It's an ethical principle, not a personal liability. To put it another way, accidents are morally superior to murder. Whereas the other situation, where one has cancer - and you're sadly incapable of helping them - involves no moral compromise. Nobody gave the person cancer. Your intention is to help the person, but you can't. It's tragic, but comparing the situations, only one of them has foul play. If you think that's self concern, then you're basically resorting to "all good behavior is ultimately selfish anyway" which, like moral relativism, is a slippery slope which removes any kind of standard. So far in this thread we've seen: - The end justifies the means - People are going to die anyway, may as well cause a shift (read: increase) in that number - All good behavior is ultimately self serving I wonder what contortion we'll see next.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        > involves someone going out of their way to imperil people No it doesn't, where did you get that from? > accidents are morally superior to murder Predictable accidents vs murder? What's the difference but personal liability? > Nobody gave the person cancer You say it's not about "being linked to the action", yet you think this relevant. Who cares if no-one gave them cancer, does that make it morally superior to die of natural cancer? > Your intention is to help the person, but you can't Only because of the way you've framed it. What if you could have helped, if another course of action had been taken? > then you're basically resorting to "all good behavior is ultimately selfish anyway" I disagree. You'll have to argue why this is the case.
        theprotocol 9y ago
        ____________ > involves someone going out of their way to imperil people No it doesn't, where did you get that from? ____________ That's the entire premise of the discussion! What do you mean where did I get that from? >Predictable accidents vs murder? What's the difference but personal liability? One is tragic, the other unethical and tragic. This point is exactly where you wind up with "all good behavior is ultimately selfish anyway" - particularly when you write: "Isn't that just self concern? You can't be linked personally as the cause of negative consequence, so you want to remain divorced from it." Here, you represent doing the right thing as avoiding being linked personally, as if it's just a self-interested maneuver. You're literally, plain as day saying that ethics is merely self interest, hence "all good behavior is ultimately selfish anyway." The example you wrote above about a girl being run over and nobody helping is completely a false analogy (and a car analogy, no less :)). The assumption from the start, which I made very clear, is that you can't help without hurting others. Saving the girl who was run over does not imperil anyone and is completely moot! The points in your response have been tactical rather than open (e.g. forcing me to go back and re-state the basic premise, which you suddenly no longer acknowledge, forcing me to go back and prove that you actually made the claim about ethics being self-interested, even though you did so plainly) and I don't appreciate that. These tactics further my conviction that your position is unjustified and ultimately dangerous.
- darpa_escapee 9y ago
  > losing them to get it quicker might be a matter of balance. This is why utilitarian math with human lives is horrifying. You believe you can quantify the worth of a life so that it is easier to justify taking it.
  - theprotocol 9y ago
    I find it to be the slipperiest of all slopes. It's an insidious threat to humanity. It reminds me of moral relativism, but instead of cultural factors being used to justify absolutely anything, here it's some bizarre yet convenient calculation of worth, which by total coincidence (sarcasm), allows all the would-be human experimenters to feel good about themselves. We haven't learned a thing from the scientific community's hype cycle. Scientists and technologists need to humble ourselves - the polar opposite of presuming to operate on humanity based on some assessment of human worth. We don't even know what a good diet looks like, never mind grandiose agendas based on assumptions of human worth! (I'd also like to correct what I wrote earlier - I meant Mengelian, not Mendelian.)
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      Again, what's this got to do with utility? You give a sceptical commentary free of any actual examples; what are you talking about?
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    > is horrifying. Why? You just say it is. I see non-utilitarian math as horrifying. The "let nature take its course" school of thought. > You believe you can quantify the worth of a life so that it is easier to justify taking it. Says who? Are you talking about intent? If life can be quantified, there is a justification. If you don't believe life can be quantified, why don't we spend unlimited dollars saving it?
    - darpa_escapee 9y ago
      > Why? We'll have to answer the questions of "How much is a life worth monetarily", "How much is this specific life worth in relation to others (or monetarily)", "Does this specific situation justify the loss of lives; if so, how many lives and, specifically, whose?", and "Who gets the power to answer these questions?" We will have to act on the answers to those questions. I believe those questions open an answer space that would give power to greedy, selfish, callous or indifferent people and ideologies to kill or let others die. I believe if we accept a utilitarianism as justification for death, we'll be inviting proponents of human actuarial science, realpolitik, genocide, sterilization and murder of certain demographics 'for the betterment of society' to kill for profit, power or any of the other reasons people have killed others in past. I don't believe that people determine value well, so I don't buy into the utilitarian argument for much. I also haven't seen good evidence that we can accurately quantify the outcomes of situations used in the utilitarian calculus before they've happened. While I reject utilitarianism as a whole, I find applying the utilitarian principle to human lives to be particularly detached. > If you don't believe life can be quantified, why don't we spend unlimited dollars saving it? I realize the questions I listed above have been asked and answered, directly and indirectly, at different times and by different people. Those questions and answers have justified a disregard for life and atrocities against humanity. I don't believe we should base policy on the answers to those questions.

Chris2048 9y ago

Except lots of eggs get broken today as a matter of course. If a technology saves lives, losing them to get it quicker might be a matter of balance.

theprotocol 9y ago
Not being able to help someone is ethically superior to risking killing someone in order to help someone else. You're not the one who gave the former cancer, but you are the one who imperiled the latter.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  Isn't that just self concern? You can't be linked personally as the cause of negative consequence, so you want to remain divorced from it. In the extreme, a small girl was run over in china, and no one stopped to help. Can they be blamed? They were not the cause...
  - theprotocol 9y ago
    It's not self concern, it's called ethics. It's not about "being linked to the action," it's simply that one situation involves someone going out of their way to imperil people, and that is simply unethical behavior. It's not about me, it's about anyone who does that. It's an ethical principle, not a personal liability. To put it another way, accidents are morally superior to murder. Whereas the other situation, where one has cancer - and you're sadly incapable of helping them - involves no moral compromise. Nobody gave the person cancer. Your intention is to help the person, but you can't. It's tragic, but comparing the situations, only one of them has foul play. If you think that's self concern, then you're basically resorting to "all good behavior is ultimately selfish anyway" which, like moral relativism, is a slippery slope which removes any kind of standard. So far in this thread we've seen: - The end justifies the means - People are going to die anyway, may as well cause a shift (read: increase) in that number - All good behavior is ultimately self serving I wonder what contortion we'll see next.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      > involves someone going out of their way to imperil people No it doesn't, where did you get that from? > accidents are morally superior to murder Predictable accidents vs murder? What's the difference but personal liability? > Nobody gave the person cancer You say it's not about "being linked to the action", yet you think this relevant. Who cares if no-one gave them cancer, does that make it morally superior to die of natural cancer? > Your intention is to help the person, but you can't Only because of the way you've framed it. What if you could have helped, if another course of action had been taken? > then you're basically resorting to "all good behavior is ultimately selfish anyway" I disagree. You'll have to argue why this is the case.
      - theprotocol 9y ago
        ____________ > involves someone going out of their way to imperil people No it doesn't, where did you get that from? ____________ That's the entire premise of the discussion! What do you mean where did I get that from? >Predictable accidents vs murder? What's the difference but personal liability? One is tragic, the other unethical and tragic. This point is exactly where you wind up with "all good behavior is ultimately selfish anyway" - particularly when you write: "Isn't that just self concern? You can't be linked personally as the cause of negative consequence, so you want to remain divorced from it." Here, you represent doing the right thing as avoiding being linked personally, as if it's just a self-interested maneuver. You're literally, plain as day saying that ethics is merely self interest, hence "all good behavior is ultimately selfish anyway." The example you wrote above about a girl being run over and nobody helping is completely a false analogy (and a car analogy, no less :)). The assumption from the start, which I made very clear, is that you can't help without hurting others. Saving the girl who was run over does not imperil anyone and is completely moot! The points in your response have been tactical rather than open (e.g. forcing me to go back and re-state the basic premise, which you suddenly no longer acknowledge, forcing me to go back and prove that you actually made the claim about ethics being self-interested, even though you did so plainly) and I don't appreciate that. These tactics further my conviction that your position is unjustified and ultimately dangerous.
darpa_escapee 9y ago
> losing them to get it quicker might be a matter of balance. This is why utilitarian math with human lives is horrifying. You believe you can quantify the worth of a life so that it is easier to justify taking it.
- theprotocol 9y ago
  I find it to be the slipperiest of all slopes. It's an insidious threat to humanity. It reminds me of moral relativism, but instead of cultural factors being used to justify absolutely anything, here it's some bizarre yet convenient calculation of worth, which by total coincidence (sarcasm), allows all the would-be human experimenters to feel good about themselves. We haven't learned a thing from the scientific community's hype cycle. Scientists and technologists need to humble ourselves - the polar opposite of presuming to operate on humanity based on some assessment of human worth. We don't even know what a good diet looks like, never mind grandiose agendas based on assumptions of human worth! (I'd also like to correct what I wrote earlier - I meant Mengelian, not Mendelian.)
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    Again, what's this got to do with utility? You give a sceptical commentary free of any actual examples; what are you talking about?
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > is horrifying. Why? You just say it is. I see non-utilitarian math as horrifying. The "let nature take its course" school of thought. > You believe you can quantify the worth of a life so that it is easier to justify taking it. Says who? Are you talking about intent? If life can be quantified, there is a justification. If you don't believe life can be quantified, why don't we spend unlimited dollars saving it?
  - darpa_escapee 9y ago
    > Why? We'll have to answer the questions of "How much is a life worth monetarily", "How much is this specific life worth in relation to others (or monetarily)", "Does this specific situation justify the loss of lives; if so, how many lives and, specifically, whose?", and "Who gets the power to answer these questions?" We will have to act on the answers to those questions. I believe those questions open an answer space that would give power to greedy, selfish, callous or indifferent people and ideologies to kill or let others die. I believe if we accept a utilitarianism as justification for death, we'll be inviting proponents of human actuarial science, realpolitik, genocide, sterilization and murder of certain demographics 'for the betterment of society' to kill for profit, power or any of the other reasons people have killed others in past. I don't believe that people determine value well, so I don't buy into the utilitarian argument for much. I also haven't seen good evidence that we can accurately quantify the outcomes of situations used in the utilitarian calculus before they've happened. While I reject utilitarianism as a whole, I find applying the utilitarian principle to human lives to be particularly detached. > If you don't believe life can be quantified, why don't we spend unlimited dollars saving it? I realize the questions I listed above have been asked and answered, directly and indirectly, at different times and by different people. Those questions and answers have justified a disregard for life and atrocities against humanity. I don't believe we should base policy on the answers to those questions.