3 ms·

Fair fair but to be clear the one example in this article is calling someone unethical who is working to implement an idea. "people working on this must be rea

Fair fair but to be clear the one example in this article is calling someone unethical who is working to implement an idea. "people working on this must be really unethical"

slededit 9y ago
It is not clear or obvious that allowing people to live longer is unethical. Resorting inmediately to an ad hominem is not an appropriate form of debate. No individual has a moral obligation to debate ideas. However if debate is shut down with fallacious arguments it limits the ability for the idea to progress. If this happens too often then progress will be slowed. That is the point of this post.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  But the argument isn't fallacious and it's not an ad hom... Extending life expectancy will increase human population and harm our environment and that harm to the environment will harm future generations so individuals working towards extending life expectancy are hurting future generations and that's unethical which makes them unethical. You can disagree with the argument but it's not fallacious.
  - slededit 9y ago
    By that argument all medical care is unethical. Regardless ideas need to be discussed divorced from the people presenting them. Medical care is no more or less ethical because Hitler is making the argument.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
      Yes but this isn't about presenting an argument, the one example given in this blog post is about someone working towards a goal. If that goal is unethical and the person is working towards it we should be able to call them unethical. It's not about whether Hitler is saying medical care is good, it's about whether someone working to exterminate the Jews can be called unethical.
      - slededit 9y ago
        Everyone has done something that caused harm at some point. If that is the bar to declare a person unethical then we all are. In this framework you are right but it makes the label useless. Most people would require action which creates direct (not second order as in this example) harm of a large magnitude before applying the label to a person. In any case labels mean different things to different people in emotionally charged subjects. Which is why they don't have a place in honest debate.
        frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        >Most people would require action which creates direct (not second order as in this example) harm of a large magnitude before applying the label to a person. That doesn't make any sense. If I directly try to eradicate the Jews I'm immoral, if my actions just have a second or third order effect of eradicating the Jews then I'm not? Most people probably use the direct vs second order distinction when it's themselves who are doing something unethical via second order effects but that's just to save some cognitive dissonance. If I know my actions have second order effects of hurting lots of people and I still do it that's unethical. >In any case labels mean different things to different people in emotionally charged subjects. Which is why they don't have a place in honest debate. Reality isn't an honest debate, reality is realpolitik. People are likely to be emotionally charged when they're told that it's okay they're being hurt because it's just a second order effect after all. Learn to deal with that emotion and argue against it, not make posts on the internet opining for something which never existed.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > If I directly try to eradicate the Jews I'm immoral, if my actions just have a second or third order effect of eradicating the Jews then I'm not? This is a common moral principle; it is found in, for instance, the classical Christian doctrine on homicide, where directly willed killing is (leaving aside war and capital punishment) categorically prohibited, but killing (even when it is a certain result, or as nearly so as practically occurs) incidental to some act with a different end is not categorically prohibited, but judged according to the proportionality of the risked harm of the act with the harm it was avoiding. (Self-defense doctrine in American, and some other, law is ultimately strongly influenced by this principle, though it diverges a bit from it.)
  - alien_at_work 9y ago
    >Extending life expectancy will increase human population [citation needed] >harm our environment [citation needed] >individuals working towards extending life expectancy are hurting future generations [citation needed] We don't know any of those things. You can debate it. Even passionately so, but it's wrong and dangerous to assume your unproven beliefs are facts and label people based on them.

Fair fair but to be clear the one example in this article is calling someone unethical who is working to implement an idea. "people working on this must be really unethical"

slededit 9y ago

It is not clear or obvious that allowing people to live longer is unethical. Resorting inmediately to an ad hominem is not an appropriate form of debate. No individual has a moral obligation to debate ideas. However if debate is shut down with fallacious arguments it limits the ability for the idea to progress. If this happens too often then progress will be slowed. That is the point of this post.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
But the argument isn't fallacious and it's not an ad hom... Extending life expectancy will increase human population and harm our environment and that harm to the environment will harm future generations so individuals working towards extending life expectancy are hurting future generations and that's unethical which makes them unethical. You can disagree with the argument but it's not fallacious.
- slededit 9y ago
  By that argument all medical care is unethical. Regardless ideas need to be discussed divorced from the people presenting them. Medical care is no more or less ethical because Hitler is making the argument.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Yes but this isn't about presenting an argument, the one example given in this blog post is about someone working towards a goal. If that goal is unethical and the person is working towards it we should be able to call them unethical. It's not about whether Hitler is saying medical care is good, it's about whether someone working to exterminate the Jews can be called unethical.
    - slededit 9y ago
      Everyone has done something that caused harm at some point. If that is the bar to declare a person unethical then we all are. In this framework you are right but it makes the label useless. Most people would require action which creates direct (not second order as in this example) harm of a large magnitude before applying the label to a person. In any case labels mean different things to different people in emotionally charged subjects. Which is why they don't have a place in honest debate.
      - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
        >Most people would require action which creates direct (not second order as in this example) harm of a large magnitude before applying the label to a person. That doesn't make any sense. If I directly try to eradicate the Jews I'm immoral, if my actions just have a second or third order effect of eradicating the Jews then I'm not? Most people probably use the direct vs second order distinction when it's themselves who are doing something unethical via second order effects but that's just to save some cognitive dissonance. If I know my actions have second order effects of hurting lots of people and I still do it that's unethical. >In any case labels mean different things to different people in emotionally charged subjects. Which is why they don't have a place in honest debate. Reality isn't an honest debate, reality is realpolitik. People are likely to be emotionally charged when they're told that it's okay they're being hurt because it's just a second order effect after all. Learn to deal with that emotion and argue against it, not make posts on the internet opining for something which never existed.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > If I directly try to eradicate the Jews I'm immoral, if my actions just have a second or third order effect of eradicating the Jews then I'm not? This is a common moral principle; it is found in, for instance, the classical Christian doctrine on homicide, where directly willed killing is (leaving aside war and capital punishment) categorically prohibited, but killing (even when it is a certain result, or as nearly so as practically occurs) incidental to some act with a different end is not categorically prohibited, but judged according to the proportionality of the risked harm of the act with the harm it was avoiding. (Self-defense doctrine in American, and some other, law is ultimately strongly influenced by this principle, though it diverges a bit from it.)
- alien_at_work 9y ago
  >Extending life expectancy will increase human population [citation needed] >harm our environment [citation needed] >individuals working towards extending life expectancy are hurting future generations [citation needed] We don't know any of those things. You can debate it. Even passionately so, but it's wrong and dangerous to assume your unproven beliefs are facts and label people based on them.