5 ms·

> A good rule to live by is to ask "what would happen if everyone did X?" This is an awful rule to live by. There are very few things in the world that _everyo

by dolni 5y ago

> A good rule to live by is to ask "what would happen if everyone did X?" This is an awful rule to live by. There are very few things in the world that _everyone_ would actually do.

Aethylia 5y ago
While true, that isn't the point of the rule. The meaning is that _if_ everyone did what you do, what _would_ happen. The practi alities of that are irrelevant. It's really about asking yourself if your actions are sustainable or damaging by scaling them up.
- dolni 5y ago
  Perhaps, in this instance, we should be asking the more pressing question of what will happen if we allow powerful corporations to suppress knowledge that they don't like.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jpambrun 5y ago
This is a well established philosophical concept referred as Kant universality laws. It is a good rule to live by. Makes it obvious that cutting in line is immoral because lines could not exist if everybody did it.
- maximus-decimus 5y ago
  Then at the same time, is it immoral for me to have no kids because it means the extinction of the human race? Is it immoral for me to have 3 kids because it means exponential growth, overpopulation, famine and destruction of the Earth? If we follow the logic to its end, the only moral choice is for everyone to have not 1, not 3 but exactly 2 kids. I feel like this "law" really fails to account that not everybody on Earth is the same person and won't do the same thing because they either don't want to or can't. Not everybody will want to use an emulator (because they want to play online, have a deckable console, or whatever other reason) or be able to get one (because they don't have a powerful enough pc). And people using emulators might make additional publicity that might bring new consumers to Nintendo products.
  - fastball 5y ago
    Not sure it would necessarily be "wrong" for the human race to cease to exist if everyone in the human race didn't want to procreate. But also remember that this is about human choices, not forced realities. The thought experiment is about what happens if everyone chooses to act in a certain way, not if everyone is a literal copy/paste automaton. To illustrate, even if everyone decided they didn't want kids, assuredly thousands/millions would still have "whoopsie" babies. With regards to choosing to have three kids: overpopulation, famine, and destruction of Earth are not a given. Firstly (and again) because nowhere close to everyone on Earth is actually able to have three kids for a variety of reasons, and secondly because even if you did have exponential population growth you can avoid those things, mostly by colonizing space / building vertically / Dyson Sphere / etc. Unlikely but not a given so therefore hard to argue its necessarily bad.
  - drdeca 5y ago
    I think the idea is "If everyone determined their actions as a function of the combination of their circumstances with their idiosyncratic wants, using the same function", where said function is assumed to be natural and not like, weirdly skewed around one particular person's wants. So, like, if John really dislikes Joe, the rule saying "if you really dislike someone, punch Joe in the face" wouldn't be a rule of the appropriate sense. It doesn't make sense that if Steve really disliked Erwin, that he would punch Joe in the face as a result. The rule that John should be considering whether he would approve of, is closer to[1] the rule "If you really dislike someone, punch them in the face." . Presumably John would find this rule less appealing than "If you really dislike someone, punch Joe in the face.", because someone might dislike John and therefore punch John in the face, and John would rather not be punched in the face. So, in the case you gave an example of, about "whether to have children", the question would be along the lines of, "If everyone decided whether to have children (as well as how many) using the same criteria that you are using (where these criteria could include their personal tastes, aspirations, etc. as a factor), would you approve of the outcome?" This seems quite compatible with the ways that people differ. Like, it isn't about assuming everyone behaves in the same way, but about assuming everyone responds to their desires and motivations in "the same way", for the right sense of "the same way". [1] I won't say that this is exactly the right rule to consider. idk. Probably not quite.
- namlem 5y ago
  It's not just in deontology either. It's also fundamental to rule utilitarianism.
- bananamerica 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure ethics advanced at least a little since 18th century.
- icedistilled 5y ago
  My twist on Kant's universality law is to add a "how many golf balls fit into a 747" guestimate. Yes I think some people would cherry pick skewed numbers to justify whatever action they want, but doing it with good faith estimates is pretty helpful. Usually the answer is don't do that.
freedomben 5y ago
I think you're taking it to literally. This is a reference to Kant's famous Categorical Imperative, and it's intended as a framework/rule which you can judge the ethicality behind a particular action. IMHO it's really one of the most beautiful and enlightening philosophical ideas out there.
namlem 5y ago
The aggregation principle exists in a number of philosophical frameworks and is generally quite useful. It shouldn't be considered an absolute of course, but it is wrong to dismiss it entirely.

by dolni 5y ago

> A good rule to live by is to ask "what would happen if everyone did X?" This is an awful rule to live by. There are very few things in the world that _everyone_ would actually do.

Aethylia 5y ago

While true, that isn't the point of the rule. The meaning is that _if_ everyone did what you do, what _would_ happen. The practi alities of that are irrelevant. It's really about asking yourself if your actions are sustainable or damaging by scaling them up.

dolni 5y ago
Perhaps, in this instance, we should be asking the more pressing question of what will happen if we allow powerful corporations to suppress knowledge that they don't like.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jpambrun 5y ago

This is a well established philosophical concept referred as Kant universality laws. It is a good rule to live by. Makes it obvious that cutting in line is immoral because lines could not exist if everybody did it.

maximus-decimus 5y ago
Then at the same time, is it immoral for me to have no kids because it means the extinction of the human race? Is it immoral for me to have 3 kids because it means exponential growth, overpopulation, famine and destruction of the Earth? If we follow the logic to its end, the only moral choice is for everyone to have not 1, not 3 but exactly 2 kids. I feel like this "law" really fails to account that not everybody on Earth is the same person and won't do the same thing because they either don't want to or can't. Not everybody will want to use an emulator (because they want to play online, have a deckable console, or whatever other reason) or be able to get one (because they don't have a powerful enough pc). And people using emulators might make additional publicity that might bring new consumers to Nintendo products.
- fastball 5y ago
  Not sure it would necessarily be "wrong" for the human race to cease to exist if everyone in the human race didn't want to procreate. But also remember that this is about human choices, not forced realities. The thought experiment is about what happens if everyone chooses to act in a certain way, not if everyone is a literal copy/paste automaton. To illustrate, even if everyone decided they didn't want kids, assuredly thousands/millions would still have "whoopsie" babies. With regards to choosing to have three kids: overpopulation, famine, and destruction of Earth are not a given. Firstly (and again) because nowhere close to everyone on Earth is actually able to have three kids for a variety of reasons, and secondly because even if you did have exponential population growth you can avoid those things, mostly by colonizing space / building vertically / Dyson Sphere / etc. Unlikely but not a given so therefore hard to argue its necessarily bad.
- drdeca 5y ago
  I think the idea is "If everyone determined their actions as a function of the combination of their circumstances with their idiosyncratic wants, using the same function", where said function is assumed to be natural and not like, weirdly skewed around one particular person's wants. So, like, if John really dislikes Joe, the rule saying "if you really dislike someone, punch Joe in the face" wouldn't be a rule of the appropriate sense. It doesn't make sense that if Steve really disliked Erwin, that he would punch Joe in the face as a result. The rule that John should be considering whether he would approve of, is closer to[1] the rule "If you really dislike someone, punch them in the face." . Presumably John would find this rule less appealing than "If you really dislike someone, punch Joe in the face.", because someone might dislike John and therefore punch John in the face, and John would rather not be punched in the face. So, in the case you gave an example of, about "whether to have children", the question would be along the lines of, "If everyone decided whether to have children (as well as how many) using the same criteria that you are using (where these criteria could include their personal tastes, aspirations, etc. as a factor), would you approve of the outcome?" This seems quite compatible with the ways that people differ. Like, it isn't about assuming everyone behaves in the same way, but about assuming everyone responds to their desires and motivations in "the same way", for the right sense of "the same way". [1] I won't say that this is exactly the right rule to consider. idk. Probably not quite.
namlem 5y ago
It's not just in deontology either. It's also fundamental to rule utilitarianism.
bananamerica 5y ago
I'm pretty sure ethics advanced at least a little since 18th century.
icedistilled 5y ago
My twist on Kant's universality law is to add a "how many golf balls fit into a 747" guestimate. Yes I think some people would cherry pick skewed numbers to justify whatever action they want, but doing it with good faith estimates is pretty helpful. Usually the answer is don't do that.

freedomben 5y ago

I think you're taking it to literally. This is a reference to Kant's famous Categorical Imperative, and it's intended as a framework/rule which you can judge the ethicality behind a particular action. IMHO it's really one of the most beautiful and enlightening philosophical ideas out there.

namlem 5y ago

The aggregation principle exists in a number of philosophical frameworks and is generally quite useful. It shouldn't be considered an absolute of course, but it is wrong to dismiss it entirely.