4 ms·
Sure, if you're part of the Kantian ethics group. But in terms of utilitarianism, I would strongly argue that Google has done more good than harm.
by rubatuga 9y ago
Sure, if you're part of the Kantian ethics group. But in terms of utilitarianism, I would strongly argue that Google has done more good than harm.
- cmurf 9y agoYeah coal and cigarette industries said the same thing, with blinders on, when all claims of health related problems were poopoo'd. They said no one could have known or imagined or predicted, even though they were and they did but it was dismissed by the gatekeepers. I see pretty much total shit knowledge of history, ethics, and philosophy in the tech industry. It intentionally has blinders on, zero imagination for anything other than the good intentions rails it's wants to believe it's on. Oh no one could have known, no one could have predicted, you had no evidence that these bad outcomes were possible. It'll be the same excuses we've seen before, because no one wanted to confront the possibility and how to mitigate complex interactions, they just want the ends because that alone justifies everything. That of course will be convenient when claiming a lack of responsibility for the outcome, shifting the blame, because only good was intended. Now trust us. And the reason why I increasingly don't trust tech, is because the language the industry uses is consistently dismissive of basic concepts in ethics, merely accepting assertions of "good intentions" as sufficient evidence of ethical behavior.