4 ms·

> For regular people in China, does the addition of Google with some censorship make their life better? Does it improve information flow over existing domestic

by untog 7y ago

> For regular people in China, does the addition of Google with some censorship make their life better? Does it improve information flow over existing domestic search engines? I think the answer is obvious. What does that have to do with ethics, really? Your argument seems to be that utility should outweigh ethical concerns. > I see a lot of people promoting sanctions on a country because of government. Who gets hurt in this case? Ordinary people living their life. So do you think governments were wrong to sanction South Africa's apartheid regime? Do you not think that the ordinary people in South Africa have a better life today as a result of those sanctions and the collapse of the apartheid regime?

bauerd 7y ago
>What does that have to do with ethics, really? The argument seems to be that utility should outweigh ethical concerns. It's called utilitarianism and here it demonstrates nicely that ethics comes in various flavors
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Kalium 7y ago
> What does that have to do with ethics, really? Your argument seems to be that utility should outweigh ethical concerns. Some would argue that denying people the ability to access information easily is unethically harming them. It preserves your own privilege instead of extending it to the less well off. There are real ethical questions here that can be weighed. It's perhaps not quite as simple for some people as money on one side and every single possible ethical factor on the other.
mrec 7y ago
> Your argument seems to be that utility should outweigh ethical concerns Not GP, but that seems a bit unfair. Utilitarianism in various flavours is a popular ethical framework; for those who subscribe to it, ethical concerns are properly calibrated and measured in utility. I suspect your argument (especially the SA comparison) would be better expressed as a tension between long- and short-term utility, but don't want to put words into your mouth.
kabouseng 7y ago
"Do you not think that the ordinary people in South Africa have a better life today as a result of those sanctions and the collapse of the apartheid regime?" Yes their lives are much better, just like the Zimbabweans.

by untog 7y ago

bauerd 7y ago

>What does that have to do with ethics, really? The argument seems to be that utility should outweigh ethical concerns. It's called utilitarianism and here it demonstrates nicely that ethics comes in various flavors

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Kalium 7y ago

> What does that have to do with ethics, really? Your argument seems to be that utility should outweigh ethical concerns. Some would argue that denying people the ability to access information easily is unethically harming them. It preserves your own privilege instead of extending it to the less well off. There are real ethical questions here that can be weighed. It's perhaps not quite as simple for some people as money on one side and every single possible ethical factor on the other.

mrec 7y ago

> Your argument seems to be that utility should outweigh ethical concerns Not GP, but that seems a bit unfair. Utilitarianism in various flavours is a popular ethical framework; for those who subscribe to it, ethical concerns are properly calibrated and measured in utility. I suspect your argument (especially the SA comparison) would be better expressed as a tension between long- and short-term utility, but don't want to put words into your mouth.

kabouseng 7y ago

"Do you not think that the ordinary people in South Africa have a better life today as a result of those sanctions and the collapse of the apartheid regime?" Yes their lives are much better, just like the Zimbabweans.