5 ms·

Reporting accurate data on the current pandemic when government officials couldn't be trusted to do so. On the balance of evidence I don't think it's that likel

Reporting accurate data on the current pandemic when government officials couldn't be trusted to do so. On the balance of evidence I don't think it's that likely that she was responsible for the unauthorized access, and even if she did I don't think the ethics would be as cut and dried as you're making them out to be regardless of what CEH says. What if that message saved lives? What if, as a hypothetical/counterfactual, it had saved thousands of lives?

giantg2 6y ago
Ends justifying the means is generally not considered sound ethical thinking. She may feel it's her moral responsibility, but it still wouldn't be ethical.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Ends justifying the means is generally not considered sound ethical thinking. Sure it is; what else could justify means? It is often recognized that there is a tendency to make arguments about ends justifying means when the benefits realistically foreseeable from an action are not such that they should be seen as justifying the particular means, though.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    It would be better if you call it by its name then - utilitarianism. The choice with the greatest good or least harm. This is different from the ends justifying the means, which is colloquially used to justify bad actions.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > It would be better if you call it by its name then - utilitarianism. Non-utilitarian deontological systems typically have rules about which means are appropriate to which ends, so, no, ends properly justifying means isn’t exclusive to utilitarian systems.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > Non-utilitarian deontological systems typically have rules about which means are appropriate to which ends, so, no, ends properly justifying means isn’t exclusive to utilitarian systems. In the example you mention, the means are justified by the rules, not the ends.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > In the example you mention, the means are justified by the rules, not the ends. No, in a deontological system where the appropriate means are tied to the ends, the means are justified by the ends. The rules are the decision principals, but the ends are (in that case) the inputs.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > deontological system where the appropriate means are tied to the ends, the means are justified by the ends. according to the rules. > The rules are the decision principals, but the ends are (in that case) the inputs. Whether an input provides justification is a function of whether the rules specify that it does or not.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        Sure, justification in any system is a product of the the rules as applied to the facts. But, just as in reasoning from facts with rules of logic and inference to conclusions of facts, you don't say knowledge of the fact conclusion is justified by the rules of logic and inference, but by the source facts, so when ethical rules consider means in determining ends, it is said that those ends are justified by the means. In either the fact or ethics case you will, when it is not otherwise clear from context, cite the particular rule framework within which you are working, but even then you wouldn't say the conclusion or action is justified by the rule framework, though you might say it is justified within the rule framework by the applicable premises.
- tfehring 6y ago
  That's an awfully flippant dismissal of an entire major branch of moral philosophy. Consequentialism has its critics and I don't expect everyone to subscribe to it in a strict sense, but if your own moral philosophy doesn't justify unauthorized access to a computer system to save lives (and s/thousands/billions/ if it's just a matter of degree) we'll just have to agree to disagree.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    They said ethics, not morals.
- danShumway 6y ago
  You're arguing about the individual definitions of specific words while ignoring the overall question. Nobody here cares about the subtle differences you see between "ethics" and "morals." Here's the question: if you have the opportunity to save hundreds or thousands of lives by breaking a minor law, are you justified in breaking that law? Many of us would say yes. The alternative is absurd, it doesn't hold up in the real world. How many widely accepted historical heroes do we have who broke laws to save lives? tfehring's point still stands, and I think you should respond to their post using the meaning that they obviously intended before you get mired down in a more pedantic debate over the technical definition of individual words.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    I think you're mistaken to think that more data will save people's lives. The people not wearing masks have turned it into a political ideology, which doesnt respond well to data base arguments.

giantg2 6y ago

Ends justifying the means is generally not considered sound ethical thinking. She may feel it's her moral responsibility, but it still wouldn't be ethical.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Ends justifying the means is generally not considered sound ethical thinking. Sure it is; what else could justify means? It is often recognized that there is a tendency to make arguments about ends justifying means when the benefits realistically foreseeable from an action are not such that they should be seen as justifying the particular means, though.
- giantg2 6y ago
  It would be better if you call it by its name then - utilitarianism. The choice with the greatest good or least harm. This is different from the ends justifying the means, which is colloquially used to justify bad actions.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > It would be better if you call it by its name then - utilitarianism. Non-utilitarian deontological systems typically have rules about which means are appropriate to which ends, so, no, ends properly justifying means isn’t exclusive to utilitarian systems.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > Non-utilitarian deontological systems typically have rules about which means are appropriate to which ends, so, no, ends properly justifying means isn’t exclusive to utilitarian systems. In the example you mention, the means are justified by the rules, not the ends.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > In the example you mention, the means are justified by the rules, not the ends. No, in a deontological system where the appropriate means are tied to the ends, the means are justified by the ends. The rules are the decision principals, but the ends are (in that case) the inputs.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > deontological system where the appropriate means are tied to the ends, the means are justified by the ends. according to the rules. > The rules are the decision principals, but the ends are (in that case) the inputs. Whether an input provides justification is a function of whether the rules specify that it does or not.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        Sure, justification in any system is a product of the the rules as applied to the facts. But, just as in reasoning from facts with rules of logic and inference to conclusions of facts, you don't say knowledge of the fact conclusion is justified by the rules of logic and inference, but by the source facts, so when ethical rules consider means in determining ends, it is said that those ends are justified by the means. In either the fact or ethics case you will, when it is not otherwise clear from context, cite the particular rule framework within which you are working, but even then you wouldn't say the conclusion or action is justified by the rule framework, though you might say it is justified within the rule framework by the applicable premises.
tfehring 6y ago
That's an awfully flippant dismissal of an entire major branch of moral philosophy. Consequentialism has its critics and I don't expect everyone to subscribe to it in a strict sense, but if your own moral philosophy doesn't justify unauthorized access to a computer system to save lives (and s/thousands/billions/ if it's just a matter of degree) we'll just have to agree to disagree.
- giantg2 6y ago
  They said ethics, not morals.
danShumway 6y ago
You're arguing about the individual definitions of specific words while ignoring the overall question. Nobody here cares about the subtle differences you see between "ethics" and "morals." Here's the question: if you have the opportunity to save hundreds or thousands of lives by breaking a minor law, are you justified in breaking that law? Many of us would say yes. The alternative is absurd, it doesn't hold up in the real world. How many widely accepted historical heroes do we have who broke laws to save lives? tfehring's point still stands, and I think you should respond to their post using the meaning that they obviously intended before you get mired down in a more pedantic debate over the technical definition of individual words.
- giantg2 6y ago
  I think you're mistaken to think that more data will save people's lives. The people not wearing masks have turned it into a political ideology, which doesnt respond well to data base arguments.