3 ms·

> Again, I am claiming that even if you can justify .01% of the population dying in car accidents on the basis of "economic activity," then the same argument do

by bhupy 6y ago

> Again, I am claiming that even if you can justify .01% of the population dying in car accidents on the basis of "economic activity," then the same argument does not work for 150-450x as many deaths. And I'm arguing that '150-450x as many deaths' is an arbitrary limit. If you can justify 0.01% of the population dying in car accidents on the basis of "economic activity", can you justify 0.02%? 0.1%? 0.3%? 0.5%? 0.9%? 1%? 2%? Where did it stop being justifiable by the same argument? My argument is that there is no objective line, it is strictly subjective. THAT is the moral framework.

pmiller2 6y ago
Your "slippery slope" justification literally does not work. I could use that same argument to say that anything that justifies one death justifies 90% of the population being killed. No sane individual believes that there's an argument for executing billions of people. And, what if I believe even one death for the sake of economic activity is too many? What of your argument, then?
- bhupy 6y ago
  First of all "capitalism" has nothing to do with this. Even a perfectly centrally planned socialist economy might come to the same conclusion. People need goods and services. Capitalism is one way to deliver them. Second of all, I'm not really sure where you got "5,250,000+ deaths per year", because current projections with reopening of the economy is about 161,000 by Aug 4[1], and that's about 5 months since the outbreak, so let's call that 386,400 annualized. Let's say we get a vaccine in 2 years, for a total of about 772,800 deaths. That represents 0.2% of US population. I want to make it clear that I, personally, do not think that it is acceptable for 0.2% of the US population to die, but I want to try and convey to you that it is entirely within the realm of possibility for REASONABLE people to conclude that 0.2% over a one-time 2-year interval is "okay", if they already think that 0.01% of Americans dying per year is already acceptable — because at that rate you reach the same 0.2% figure over 20 years, and it continues to grow unbounded. > And, what if I believe even one death for the sake of economic activity is too many? What of your argument, then? It's totally fair for you to have that opinion! But the vast majority of people do not believe that, and you absolutely cannot argue that people lack the moral right to believe that 1 death for the sake of the economy is acceptable. [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-some-people-be-affected-badly-yes-trump-says-us-must-reopen-coronavirus-deaths-projected-to-hit-100000-in-weeks-2020-05-06 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-some-people-be-affect...
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    I did not mean to say that unnecessary deaths were the result of capitalism and only capitalism. I only used the "C" word to highlight that those interested in restarting the economy are those who will benefit the most from it. And, those people are not the vulnerable people on the ground making the sacrifices. Under socialism, the people who would benefit and the people making sacrifices would be identical, and that's the fundamental difference there. Sorry to have been unclear. Regarding 5.25M deaths, I showed my work upthread on that. It's 1.5% of 328.2 million (approximate current US population). This is what the likely result would be if we just "resumed normal activity" and waited for herd immunity, which may or may not come. > you absolutely cannot argue that people lack the moral right to believe that 1 death for the sake of the economy is acceptable. Why not? No one has the moral authority to choose to end my life besides me.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      > Why not? Because it is practically unenforceable, and almost nobody considers 1 death for "economic activity" to be unacceptable, so by extension means that everyone holds an immoral world view, and everyone is violating your supposed natural human law...in which case, of what use is that law? If everyone is evil, then nobody is evil.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Imperfection is not evil.
        bhupy 6y ago
        Indeed, it is not. To some people, opening the economy is “imperfect”, but acceptable.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        I don't consider it acceptable, but the number of people that would die if we literally just shut everything off (including "essential" services and utilities) is unacceptable. "The economy" as it exists today simply leaves too many people behind. When 8 billionaires have as much wealth as half the world, and when wealth is essentially freedom, that's what's unacceptable.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  Yeah the fallacy here is the fallacy of grey. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLJv2CoRCgeC2mPgj/the-fallacy-of-gray https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLJv2CoRCgeC2mPgj/the-fallac... There is also an argument to be made that society spends a lot of resources[1] to keep automobile carnage low as it is. It would stand to reason that society response to something even dangerous would be proportionate. [1] We have extensive and complicated vehicles laws. We have traffic cops performing surveillance 24/7. We ban dangerous drivers. We require cars have crash protection. We design roads to be as safe as possible. Goes on and on.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Yes, and few people are arguing for a total reopening free-for-all. The death projections from reopening account for the existing amount of COVID testing, people wearing face masks, self quarantining, and random sample tracing.
    - Gibbon1 6y ago
      I think a fallacy of half measures are in play here. In that the shorter term needed for extreme measures will cost less in the long run. Consider this fall China, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand will have been virus free for six months while the US and Sweden continues to fester. The economic damage isn't proportional to the extremity of the measures, but of that multiplied by length of time they are imposed.

by bhupy 6y ago

pmiller2 6y ago

Your "slippery slope" justification literally does not work. I could use that same argument to say that anything that justifies one death justifies 90% of the population being killed. No sane individual believes that there's an argument for executing billions of people. And, what if I believe even one death for the sake of economic activity is too many? What of your argument, then?

bhupy 6y ago
First of all "capitalism" has nothing to do with this. Even a perfectly centrally planned socialist economy might come to the same conclusion. People need goods and services. Capitalism is one way to deliver them. Second of all, I'm not really sure where you got "5,250,000+ deaths per year", because current projections with reopening of the economy is about 161,000 by Aug 4[1], and that's about 5 months since the outbreak, so let's call that 386,400 annualized. Let's say we get a vaccine in 2 years, for a total of about 772,800 deaths. That represents 0.2% of US population. I want to make it clear that I, personally, do not think that it is acceptable for 0.2% of the US population to die, but I want to try and convey to you that it is entirely within the realm of possibility for REASONABLE people to conclude that 0.2% over a one-time 2-year interval is "okay", if they already think that 0.01% of Americans dying per year is already acceptable — because at that rate you reach the same 0.2% figure over 20 years, and it continues to grow unbounded. > And, what if I believe even one death for the sake of economic activity is too many? What of your argument, then? It's totally fair for you to have that opinion! But the vast majority of people do not believe that, and you absolutely cannot argue that people lack the moral right to believe that 1 death for the sake of the economy is acceptable. [1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-some-people-be-affected-badly-yes-trump-says-us-must-reopen-coronavirus-deaths-projected-to-hit-100000-in-weeks-2020-05-06 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-some-people-be-affect...
- pmiller2 6y ago
  I did not mean to say that unnecessary deaths were the result of capitalism and only capitalism. I only used the "C" word to highlight that those interested in restarting the economy are those who will benefit the most from it. And, those people are not the vulnerable people on the ground making the sacrifices. Under socialism, the people who would benefit and the people making sacrifices would be identical, and that's the fundamental difference there. Sorry to have been unclear. Regarding 5.25M deaths, I showed my work upthread on that. It's 1.5% of 328.2 million (approximate current US population). This is what the likely result would be if we just "resumed normal activity" and waited for herd immunity, which may or may not come. > you absolutely cannot argue that people lack the moral right to believe that 1 death for the sake of the economy is acceptable. Why not? No one has the moral authority to choose to end my life besides me.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > Why not? Because it is practically unenforceable, and almost nobody considers 1 death for "economic activity" to be unacceptable, so by extension means that everyone holds an immoral world view, and everyone is violating your supposed natural human law...in which case, of what use is that law? If everyone is evil, then nobody is evil.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Imperfection is not evil.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        Indeed, it is not. To some people, opening the economy is “imperfect”, but acceptable.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        I don't consider it acceptable, but the number of people that would die if we literally just shut everything off (including "essential" services and utilities) is unacceptable. "The economy" as it exists today simply leaves too many people behind. When 8 billionaires have as much wealth as half the world, and when wealth is essentially freedom, that's what's unacceptable.
Gibbon1 6y ago
Yeah the fallacy here is the fallacy of grey. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLJv2CoRCgeC2mPgj/the-fallacy-of-gray https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLJv2CoRCgeC2mPgj/the-fallac... There is also an argument to be made that society spends a lot of resources[1] to keep automobile carnage low as it is. It would stand to reason that society response to something even dangerous would be proportionate. [1] We have extensive and complicated vehicles laws. We have traffic cops performing surveillance 24/7. We ban dangerous drivers. We require cars have crash protection. We design roads to be as safe as possible. Goes on and on.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Yes, and few people are arguing for a total reopening free-for-all. The death projections from reopening account for the existing amount of COVID testing, people wearing face masks, self quarantining, and random sample tracing.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    I think a fallacy of half measures are in play here. In that the shorter term needed for extreme measures will cost less in the long run. Consider this fall China, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand will have been virus free for six months while the US and Sweden continues to fester. The economic damage isn't proportional to the extremity of the measures, but of that multiplied by length of time they are imposed.