3 ms·

Seems like you're failing to address the 'knew they were going to kill people' part. Everyone can always do better, but everyone doesn't know exactly which of

Seems like you're failing to address the 'knew they were going to kill people' part. Everyone can always do better, but everyone doesn't know exactly which of their decisions will end up killing another person. If you DO know that, then you're obligated to change things.

Xylakant 6y ago
Everyone entering a car today knows that given the wrong combination of events, they may kill someone, maybe even a toddler chasing a ball. Yet, millions of people still drive daily. Even cyclists are not free from that risk - when I leave later and take my cargo bike to pick up my kid, I might be distracted in the wrong instant and run over someone else’s child. I try hard not to, but the safest way to reduce that risk would be to walk. Still, I don’t. We all balance risks, even deadly ones, to us and others, all of the time.
- XorNot 6y ago
  We balance risks which have uncontrollable inputs. Not controllable ones for which we now have an answer. That's the difference. You note it right in your comment - that you in fact do take measures to be safe, and try to be specifically aware of elements of the dynamic situation which require attention. That's very different to say, if you planned on reversing a car and decided it took too much effort to look behind you before you do. Sure - chances are most of the time you won't run over a child doing this...
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >Not controllable ones for which we now have an answer. We do it all the time? How far are you from the nearest fire extinguisher? Can't that number be reduced? That is but one example.
    - XorNot 6y ago
      Has my present distance to a fire extinguisher been implicated in a spate of house fires which have killed or injured other people? I as an individual can take the risks I choose to take with my life. I have no right to apply that to others though. In fact the building I'm currently in was built to local standards which mandated all sorts of things in relation to providing adequate control of known risks related to the spread of fire, and has smoke detectors fitted for that purpose. Because the builder of the house might have been okay accepting that risk for themselves, but we don't let them just pass it on to others.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>Seems like you're failing to address the 'knew they were going to kill people' part. Damn near every engineering decision could lead to some sequence of events that kills someone and given infinite time will eventually do so. This is a core concept of pretty much every ethics in engineering class that many people here have taken in order to obtain their degree. Don't slap doors befitting a missile silo on your car? If your cars rick up enough miles someone's gonna die in a T-bone eventually. Build an overpass with small beams and a support on the median instead of big expensive beams and no support? Someone's gonna hit that support eventually. The sorts of excesses that can prevent unlikely deaths are justifiable in individual and in the abstract but at a societal level we cannot afford to think this way. As we get richer we can afford to hedge against more and more remote failure modes but even then at some point the risk is low enough. In the 1950s we couldn't justify seat-belts in all cars. In the 1980s we couldn't justify making cars as rigid as we do today. Between wealth and technological progress things are generally getting better all the time but to hold the past to the standards of the present is asinine.

Xylakant 6y ago

Everyone entering a car today knows that given the wrong combination of events, they may kill someone, maybe even a toddler chasing a ball. Yet, millions of people still drive daily. Even cyclists are not free from that risk - when I leave later and take my cargo bike to pick up my kid, I might be distracted in the wrong instant and run over someone else’s child. I try hard not to, but the safest way to reduce that risk would be to walk. Still, I don’t. We all balance risks, even deadly ones, to us and others, all of the time.

XorNot 6y ago
We balance risks which have uncontrollable inputs. Not controllable ones for which we now have an answer. That's the difference. You note it right in your comment - that you in fact do take measures to be safe, and try to be specifically aware of elements of the dynamic situation which require attention. That's very different to say, if you planned on reversing a car and decided it took too much effort to look behind you before you do. Sure - chances are most of the time you won't run over a child doing this...
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >Not controllable ones for which we now have an answer. We do it all the time? How far are you from the nearest fire extinguisher? Can't that number be reduced? That is but one example.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    Has my present distance to a fire extinguisher been implicated in a spate of house fires which have killed or injured other people? I as an individual can take the risks I choose to take with my life. I have no right to apply that to others though. In fact the building I'm currently in was built to local standards which mandated all sorts of things in relation to providing adequate control of known risks related to the spread of fire, and has smoke detectors fitted for that purpose. Because the builder of the house might have been okay accepting that risk for themselves, but we don't let them just pass it on to others.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

>Seems like you're failing to address the 'knew they were going to kill people' part. Damn near every engineering decision could lead to some sequence of events that kills someone and given infinite time will eventually do so. This is a core concept of pretty much every ethics in engineering class that many people here have taken in order to obtain their degree. Don't slap doors befitting a missile silo on your car? If your cars rick up enough miles someone's gonna die in a T-bone eventually. Build an overpass with small beams and a support on the median instead of big expensive beams and no support? Someone's gonna hit that support eventually. The sorts of excesses that can prevent unlikely deaths are justifiable in individual and in the abstract but at a societal level we cannot afford to think this way. As we get richer we can afford to hedge against more and more remote failure modes but even then at some point the risk is low enough. In the 1950s we couldn't justify seat-belts in all cars. In the 1980s we couldn't justify making cars as rigid as we do today. Between wealth and technological progress things are generally getting better all the time but to hold the past to the standards of the present is asinine.