4 ms·
"we might care more about one or the other" Caring more about one or the other is exactly the issue. The reasoning about the degree of which to care about eith
by compiler-guy 8y ago
"we might care more about one or the other"
Caring more about one or the other is exactly the issue. The reasoning about the degree of which to care about either at all is the issue that cannot be resolved objectively.
Putting a dam in place that won't impact the ecosystem so much--sure, we can minimize the tradeoffs, but the tradeoffs remain, and all resolve to what we value vis a vis what it costs. Which is not objective.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoOf course the reasoning is objective, once you dig down to the underlying "non-objective" values. Think of it as akin to mathematics. Mathematics starts with axioms, which can be completely arbitrary, and then derives an entire universe from them by following only objective, formal reasoning. Similarly here, you have some personal values that are (to some extent) arbitrary, but accepting those, you get to use objective reasoning to devise a set of tradeoffs that satisfies those values the best. Also sometimes different people with different values aren't really in conflict, they just don't have enough knowledge to realize their values aren't being violated. Fix that, and you can get agreement.
- compiler-guy 8y agoThe axioms are precisely what is not objective.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoYes. But everything above them is.