4 ms·

The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics strikes again. "when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, yo

by whack 9y ago

The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics strikes again. "when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster." https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...

JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
I think I am missing the relevance here, or not getting your point, could you clarify please? Possible I'm missing the obvious reference. As a side note, I find that articles arguments troubling for several reasons that appear to be glossed over, but in interest of not derailing onto a different comment, I'll wait for what aspect you are specifically referring to in this case.
- semi-extrinsic 9y ago
  I think he meant that when Japan gave that loan, they took a significant risk (loan could very well default) in order to help fight polio. Other countries did nothing. Yet now Japan looks like the bad guy.
- SolarNet 9y ago
  Japan did something to stop polio when no one else would. And now because a billionaire did more as charity Japan looks like a monster for doing what no one else would at the time. Would it have been better if Japan had done nothing and Bill gates committed the charity now? No, people would have died. So unless you are japanese my question to you would be what has your government done for polio irradication in Nigeria? Because I bet it's less than the Japanese government.
  - JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
    From that perspective, I can see what he meant. Fair enough. The ethics of profiting off the act might need to be truncated off it though, that is a genuine moral discussion that has so many shades of grey I feel.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by whack 9y ago

JauntyHatAngle 9y ago

I think I am missing the relevance here, or not getting your point, could you clarify please? Possible I'm missing the obvious reference. As a side note, I find that articles arguments troubling for several reasons that appear to be glossed over, but in interest of not derailing onto a different comment, I'll wait for what aspect you are specifically referring to in this case.

semi-extrinsic 9y ago
I think he meant that when Japan gave that loan, they took a significant risk (loan could very well default) in order to help fight polio. Other countries did nothing. Yet now Japan looks like the bad guy.
SolarNet 9y ago
Japan did something to stop polio when no one else would. And now because a billionaire did more as charity Japan looks like a monster for doing what no one else would at the time. Would it have been better if Japan had done nothing and Bill gates committed the charity now? No, people would have died. So unless you are japanese my question to you would be what has your government done for polio irradication in Nigeria? Because I bet it's less than the Japanese government.
- JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
  From that perspective, I can see what he meant. Fair enough. The ethics of profiting off the act might need to be truncated off it though, that is a genuine moral discussion that has so many shades of grey I feel.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]