4 ms·

> This logic does not hold up. Let's say you sell hammers, and a person walks into your store and says 'I'd like one hammer please — I'm going to go bash my fri

> This logic does not hold up. Let's say you sell hammers, and a person walks into your store and says 'I'd like one hammer please — I'm going to go bash my friend's skull in'. This is called a "Faulty analogy" or "False analogy": https://examples.yourdictionary.com/false-analogy-examples.html https://examples.yourdictionary.com/false-analogy-examples.h..., https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Faulty-Analogy.html https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definit... In this case, you've equated two things because they can both cause some amount of harm, but have ignored the quantity of harm, the existence and quantity of positive benefits, and the presence of stated intent.

onion2k 6y ago
The point is that all the good of Autodesk's products in non-mining industries is great but when a company like someone who makes mining equipment comes along Autodesk should treat them as they're someone who says they're going to use the software to bash their friend's planet in.
gramstrong 6y ago
No it's not. doctorhandshake wasn't even making an analogy. They were applying OP's rule (we shouldn't dictate business based on political beliefs) to a hypothetical in order to demonstrate its negative moral outcome.
thomaslord 6y ago
> quantity of harm It's very possible (I'd argue probable) that operating a single, large-scale coal mining operation causes more total harm than bashing a single person's skull in with a hammer. > existence and quantity of positive benefits Coal as an industry is unnecessary at the scale it exists at today, so any added efficiencies in that industry due to the use of Autodesk products most likely count as a harm rather than a positive benefit. > presence of stated intent From the press releases on the page linked by the OP, it seems that Autodesk is well aware of the activities of the coal companies using their software, to the point that they use it as a selling point for their products. Perhaps the first moment they began selling to those companies they were unaware, but at this point they have explicitly advertised to the public that they know what those companies are doing. * Edited to fix line breaks

onion2k 6y ago

The point is that all the good of Autodesk's products in non-mining industries is great but when a company like someone who makes mining equipment comes along Autodesk should treat them as they're someone who says they're going to use the software to bash their friend's planet in.

gramstrong 6y ago

No it's not. doctorhandshake wasn't even making an analogy. They were applying OP's rule (we shouldn't dictate business based on political beliefs) to a hypothetical in order to demonstrate its negative moral outcome.

thomaslord 6y ago

> quantity of harm It's very possible (I'd argue probable) that operating a single, large-scale coal mining operation causes more total harm than bashing a single person's skull in with a hammer. > existence and quantity of positive benefits Coal as an industry is unnecessary at the scale it exists at today, so any added efficiencies in that industry due to the use of Autodesk products most likely count as a harm rather than a positive benefit. > presence of stated intent From the press releases on the page linked by the OP, it seems that Autodesk is well aware of the activities of the coal companies using their software, to the point that they use it as a selling point for their products. Perhaps the first moment they began selling to those companies they were unaware, but at this point they have explicitly advertised to the public that they know what those companies are doing. * Edited to fix line breaks