3 ms·
But he's saying that even if the answer to your concern is satisfying, there are other factors which outweigh that benefit and should be considered.
by Fernicia 8y ago
But he's saying that even if the answer to your concern is satisfying, there are other factors which outweigh that benefit and should be considered.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> there are other factors which outweigh that benefit How can you weigh a cost against a benefit when you have no idea how big the benefit is?
- scarecrowbob 8y agoI can't say in the particular case of surveillance. One generalized answer to your question is: "if the cost is unethical" then paying it really isn't on the table for ethical people. So the cost of doing something unethical is infinite, assuming that you need to remain ethical, and any benefit is necessary smaller than the cost of losing your ethical status. You might not agree that ethics are pragmatically important, but the point here is that it's possible to do a utilitarian calculus even if you don't know fully understand the possible upsides.