4 ms·

> The motive behind his dangerous tweets and tantrums is pretty clear for everyone to see. Does his motive necessarily matter? Or more specifically, is his mot

> The motive behind his dangerous tweets and tantrums is pretty clear for everyone to see. Does his motive necessarily matter? Or more specifically, is his motive reason enough to essentially spite him? If Elon wanted to cure all disease in every single on of his workers (because that would mean they would never take sick days, and thus produce more) does that mean you would oppose the curing of disease in Elon's workers? After all, Elon's motivations are purely selfish in this case as well Now maybe you want to argue that curing disease in workers and allowing them to work are two different things and don't match up at all. Are they though? Jobs ensure quality healthcare, pay for the roof over your head, the food on your table, the pain killers you take for your bad back, etc. A lot of being 'healthy' and having a job (in the US) are intimately related. I'm sure there are plenty of holes in my example above that can be quibbled over; however, my question still stands: is someone's motivation reason enough to spite something that could be a net good? I do not think so. You may wish to argue that "the workers don't want to go back to work, it's worse for them to do so": are you one of these workers; do you know what the consequences are of them not being able to work versus the consequences of going into work?

ehnto 6y ago
You've gone on a veritable expedition to make this argument, and somewhat wrapped two ideas into one. Someone's motivation is enough to lose respect for them, especially if it's under the guise of something else. It's conniving to deceive in order to get your way. So lets say we consider the action a net good, we can totally support the action, recognize the bad sides, and still lose respect for the person for the way they have conducted themselves.
- cassalian 6y ago
  Did I say that you could not lose respect for that person? I simply pointed out that because a single person's motivations are selfish does not mean we should work to spite that person. If I have made the argument that we must respect Elon (or someone who's motivations are selfish) that was not my intention and I will need to reflect on how I present my ideas in the future. > So lets say we consider the action a net good, we can totally support the action, recognize the bad sides, and still lose respect for the person for the way they have conducted themselves. It seems to me like we agree!
gwd 6y ago
> Does his motive necessarily matter? ...If Elon wanted to cure all disease in every single on of his workers ...does that mean you would oppose the curing of disease in Elon's workers? The way I see it is this: Forming beliefs is not a morally neutral activity. It's likely that for some definitions of "belief", Elon Musk does really "believe" that COVID-19 isn't that serious, that closing his factory wasn't and isn't necessary, that it will be a net benefit his workers and society to have the factory opened up. The question is, when he was forming his beliefs, what was his goal? Was his primary motivation to find the truth? Was one of his primary motivations to safeguard the wellbeing of his employees? Let us suppose hypothetical universe A, where Musk genuinely came to the question with a concern for his employees, fully intending to keep his factory closed if that's where the data pointed; and that in this universe, after looking extensively into the data and the arguments, he came to the conclusion that no, the experts are wrong: the virus was not actually dangerous, and/or that it would be safe to open his factory. In such a universe, we can forgive him, even if he's wrong, because he came to his beliefs in a laudable manner. EDIT: Furthermore, in this universe, if an intelligent person such as Musk has taken a genuine look at the data and concluded that opening is safe, then -- well, maybe we should consider the idea that it actually is safe. Now let us suppose hypothetical universe B, where Musk is annoyed with the setback: First of all, it sets back his timeline for Tesla taking over the (automotive) world, advancing EV technology, and so on; second of all, it's far from clear that Tesla as a business is "out of the woods" in terms of sustainability. He wants to believe that opening the factory is safe, and he allows this desire to filter out any evidence that disagrees with this belief. In such a universe, we can blame him, because the act of allowing your desires to twist your belief -- particularly when the lives of so many people are at stake -- is morally wrong. Furthermore, in such a universe, Elon's actions are actually hypocritical: He claims to care about the welfare of workers, but in fact his actions have been controlled by a disregard for their health and safety. EDIT: And along with the above edit -- if Musk's primary motivation was not finding the truth or protecting worker safety, but finding a justification for what he wants to believe, then we don't need to think as hard about his arguments. Now the question is: Given what we know of Musks past actions, what he's said in the current debate, and what we know about the evidence available to him in general, which of those hypothetical universes is closest to the truth? I don't know Musk personally, and haven't even followed him that closely as a celebrity; but from what I have seen, I tend to find universe B more plausible than universe A.

ehnto 6y ago

You've gone on a veritable expedition to make this argument, and somewhat wrapped two ideas into one. Someone's motivation is enough to lose respect for them, especially if it's under the guise of something else. It's conniving to deceive in order to get your way. So lets say we consider the action a net good, we can totally support the action, recognize the bad sides, and still lose respect for the person for the way they have conducted themselves.

cassalian 6y ago
Did I say that you could not lose respect for that person? I simply pointed out that because a single person's motivations are selfish does not mean we should work to spite that person. If I have made the argument that we must respect Elon (or someone who's motivations are selfish) that was not my intention and I will need to reflect on how I present my ideas in the future. > So lets say we consider the action a net good, we can totally support the action, recognize the bad sides, and still lose respect for the person for the way they have conducted themselves. It seems to me like we agree!

gwd 6y ago

> Does his motive necessarily matter? ...If Elon wanted to cure all disease in every single on of his workers ...does that mean you would oppose the curing of disease in Elon's workers? The way I see it is this: Forming beliefs is not a morally neutral activity. It's likely that for some definitions of "belief", Elon Musk does really "believe" that COVID-19 isn't that serious, that closing his factory wasn't and isn't necessary, that it will be a net benefit his workers and society to have the factory opened up. The question is, when he was forming his beliefs, what was his goal? Was his primary motivation to find the truth? Was one of his primary motivations to safeguard the wellbeing of his employees? Let us suppose hypothetical universe A, where Musk genuinely came to the question with a concern for his employees, fully intending to keep his factory closed if that's where the data pointed; and that in this universe, after looking extensively into the data and the arguments, he came to the conclusion that no, the experts are wrong: the virus was not actually dangerous, and/or that it would be safe to open his factory. In such a universe, we can forgive him, even if he's wrong, because he came to his beliefs in a laudable manner. EDIT: Furthermore, in this universe, if an intelligent person such as Musk has taken a genuine look at the data and concluded that opening is safe, then -- well, maybe we should consider the idea that it actually is safe. Now let us suppose hypothetical universe B, where Musk is annoyed with the setback: First of all, it sets back his timeline for Tesla taking over the (automotive) world, advancing EV technology, and so on; second of all, it's far from clear that Tesla as a business is "out of the woods" in terms of sustainability. He wants to believe that opening the factory is safe, and he allows this desire to filter out any evidence that disagrees with this belief. In such a universe, we can blame him, because the act of allowing your desires to twist your belief -- particularly when the lives of so many people are at stake -- is morally wrong. Furthermore, in such a universe, Elon's actions are actually hypocritical: He claims to care about the welfare of workers, but in fact his actions have been controlled by a disregard for their health and safety. EDIT: And along with the above edit -- if Musk's primary motivation was not finding the truth or protecting worker safety, but finding a justification for what he wants to believe, then we don't need to think as hard about his arguments. Now the question is: Given what we know of Musks past actions, what he's said in the current debate, and what we know about the evidence available to him in general, which of those hypothetical universes is closest to the truth? I don't know Musk personally, and haven't even followed him that closely as a celebrity; but from what I have seen, I tend to find universe B more plausible than universe A.