3 ms·

>I think it's unfair to offer these as the comparisons to what he actually did They're not comparisons. They are hypotheticals, intended to explore the range o

>I think it's unfair to offer these as the comparisons to what he actually did They're not comparisons. They are hypotheticals, intended to explore the range of possibilities that people would allow or oppose. If people want to argue that the doctor was right to go out and distribute the vaccine ad-hoc, I think they should consider not just the actual result, but also counterfactuals, and whether in those counterfactual cases the actions would still be "justified". By returning to the real events, you're avoiding that consideration. >Not really - the policy was exists in most places heavily favors the most vulnerable, not equitable racial distribution. I did not mean "equity" in terms of "equitable racial distribution". I meant "equity" in the nebulous way of "fairness".

valarauko 6y ago
> If people want to argue that the doctor was right to go out and distribute the vaccine ad-hoc, I think they should consider not just the actual result, but also counterfactuals, and whether in those counterfactual cases the actions would still be "justified". By returning to the real events, you're avoiding that consideration. I agree that we must consider counterfactuals, but we can still only judge him by his actions, not hypothetical scenarios. Considering counterfactuals should help guide policy, not punishment. > I did not mean "equity" in terms of "equitable racial distribution". I meant "equity" in the nebulous way of "fairness". So how do we determine a particular list of recipients was "equitable" or not? While I agree with the idea that equity should mean fairness, I would offer that unfortunately in America that notion begins and ends with "equitable racial distribution".