3 ms·
If the only problem is that we've wasted a lot of time, and in the end one company builds one product that changes the world, then maybe it's worth it.
by endlessvoid94 8y ago
If the only problem is that we've wasted a lot of time, and in the end one company builds one product that changes the world, then maybe it's worth it.
- slg 8y agoThe existence of a positive net result is not sufficient justification for a poor, inefficient, or wasteful process that led to that result.
- workinthehead 8y agoIt is if you're a utilitarian.
- slg 8y agoI am not a philosophy student, but I think you have that backwards. My last comment was fundamentally a utilitarian one as it is about maximizing efficiency and minimizing waste. You don't see utilitarians walking around talking about "a sufficient level of good for a sufficiently large group of people".
- workinthehead 8y agoThat's incorrect. In your original comment you referred to "a positive net result", which the utilitarian will always prefer by definition. Perhaps you are confusing utility with efficiency?
- slg 8y ago>which the utilitarian will always prefer by definition That is the heart of our confusion here. You are comparing it to a neutral state. Yes, a utilitarian would prefer any positive outcome to that. However, I was implying that there was another path that would have resulted in an even more positive result but through inefficiency we were left with a lesser but still positive result. That waste of resources like time and money is equivalent to a waste of utility that a utilitarian would obviously oppose.
- workinthehead 8y ago> I was implying that there was another path that would have resulted in an even more positive result Ah, the old "I intended the exact opposite of what I said" ploy.