4 ms·

If you want to maximize ethical utility, pick the course which reduces the greatest amount of suffering. Prognosticators not required.

Retric 6y ago
It’s impossible to know the net results after hundreds of years. The assassination of archduke ferdinand, might be a net positive for people currently alive today or a net negative, but it really seemed like a bad thing for the next several decades. Essentially, people can’t make judgements with total information.
- catssie 6y ago
  No.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Yes.
    - catssie 6y ago
      Justifying murder, no.
      - Retric 6y ago
        I am saying, it’s such a large change we can’t tell if it currently benefiting us. It’s one of those events that had such a large impact it’s impossible to say what the world would be like without it. It seems like it was responsible for WWI, WWII, the Spanish flu, etc but would worse things happened instead? I doubt it, but maybe it indirectly prevented total nuclear war. Which when you get down to it is true of everything, we need to act with imperfect information.
        catssie 6y ago
        It’s literally a non-argument designed to not even consider my position and talk over it with flights of fancy. Every decision is based on incomplete information, ever. Your argument is an argument against the very state of knowing. It’s Descarte but with even less understanding of a causal system. Your argument: we can’t possibly know everything, therefore assume nothing is correct. Except reality is a persistent illusion, so we work in that reality. Your fantasy world where there is a god that can see all futures is fantasy. Don’t confuse the imagination with reality.
        Retric 6y ago
        > Whom? Well, the greatest number of people possible. All time frames. All scopes. You philosophers always trying to confuse the simple. Your philosophy is literally dependent on information that’s impossible to know which is a real limitation. In the real world we can estimate harms and benefits, but it’s the unknown factor which makes sacrificing someone ‘for the greater good’ so abhorrent. If the rule is to minimize total probable harm, then you need to consider second order effects of choices. You further need to carefully consider/model repercussions rather than assuming each choice has obvious costs. Simply shooting infected people may reduce the risks of spreading a plague in the short term, but it’s got huge long term issues as people then try and hide their infection etc.
        catssie 6y ago
        You literally think you are making a coherent argument that doesn’t collapse in on itself?
oarsinsync 6y ago
> pick the course which reduces the greatest amount of suffering Reduces for who? Over what time frame? What's the scope, and why that scope and not a different scope?
- catssie 6y ago
  Whom? Well, the greatest number of people possible. All time frames. All scopes. You philosophers always trying to confuse the simple.

Retric 6y ago

It’s impossible to know the net results after hundreds of years. The assassination of archduke ferdinand, might be a net positive for people currently alive today or a net negative, but it really seemed like a bad thing for the next several decades. Essentially, people can’t make judgements with total information.

catssie 6y ago
No.
- Retric 6y ago
  Yes.
  - catssie 6y ago
    Justifying murder, no.
    - Retric 6y ago
      I am saying, it’s such a large change we can’t tell if it currently benefiting us. It’s one of those events that had such a large impact it’s impossible to say what the world would be like without it. It seems like it was responsible for WWI, WWII, the Spanish flu, etc but would worse things happened instead? I doubt it, but maybe it indirectly prevented total nuclear war. Which when you get down to it is true of everything, we need to act with imperfect information.
      - catssie 6y ago
        It’s literally a non-argument designed to not even consider my position and talk over it with flights of fancy. Every decision is based on incomplete information, ever. Your argument is an argument against the very state of knowing. It’s Descarte but with even less understanding of a causal system. Your argument: we can’t possibly know everything, therefore assume nothing is correct. Except reality is a persistent illusion, so we work in that reality. Your fantasy world where there is a god that can see all futures is fantasy. Don’t confuse the imagination with reality.
        Retric 6y ago
        > Whom? Well, the greatest number of people possible. All time frames. All scopes. You philosophers always trying to confuse the simple. Your philosophy is literally dependent on information that’s impossible to know which is a real limitation. In the real world we can estimate harms and benefits, but it’s the unknown factor which makes sacrificing someone ‘for the greater good’ so abhorrent. If the rule is to minimize total probable harm, then you need to consider second order effects of choices. You further need to carefully consider/model repercussions rather than assuming each choice has obvious costs. Simply shooting infected people may reduce the risks of spreading a plague in the short term, but it’s got huge long term issues as people then try and hide their infection etc.
        catssie 6y ago
        You literally think you are making a coherent argument that doesn’t collapse in on itself?

oarsinsync 6y ago

> pick the course which reduces the greatest amount of suffering Reduces for who? Over what time frame? What's the scope, and why that scope and not a different scope?

catssie 6y ago
Whom? Well, the greatest number of people possible. All time frames. All scopes. You philosophers always trying to confuse the simple.