3 ms·
I knew someone was going to push the limit - how about exercise, it kills some people. The bleedin' obvious answer is where the benefits outweight the cost. Be
by tempguy9999 7y ago
I knew someone was going to push the limit - how about exercise, it kills some people.
The bleedin' obvious answer is where the benefits outweight the cost. Benefit obviously extends further than 'can kill with x% probability'.
This is a useless post, try answering the question, or giving a framework within which it can be answered, instead of asking it.
- Mirioron 7y agoIt's not a useless post at all. It's sometimes difficult to quantify the negatives and positives of an activity. For example, eating meat. I have heard a lot about how eating meat is harmful to people's health and our environment. Shouldn't we ban that as well?
- tempguy9999 7y ago> It's sometimes difficult to quantify the negatives and positives of an activity So from this you talk about banning them, right? Except you ban everything because everything has a risk, which is something no-one would accept. Alternative is you try and answer the question instead of asking it. A utilitarian viewpoint. A 'You-can-{smoke/drink/parachute/motorrace}-if-you-have-enough-money-to-cover-your-own-hospital-costs' approach. An attempt to quantify where the line should be drawn, which is what I was getting at. Or not ban them at all, as some people will propose, which certainly has some merit. Hand over that decision to the government (which seems to be happening anyway) and wash your hands of it as an individual - the conformist approach. And doubtless others. Don't ask obvious questions, questions are easy, and this one is trivial to ask. Try to answer them instead.