4 ms·

I somewhat share this view, which I now learn is called Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (don't know if by the author or academically). Let me clarify my dif

I somewhat share this view, which I now learn is called Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (don't know if by the author or academically). Let me clarify my differences: interacting with a problem should be worded like "creating the definition of a problem". This changes things because saying things, as I view the world, is an action like any other. But my conclusions from this are the opposite of what the author ascribes to this Copenhagen school: defining a problem is an action, helping a few bums is another action, and generally it's considered a good one (especially by the helped bums I think). So it's "good" (I handle this term with great care...) I think the problem lies in the following assumption nearly every people makes, even relativistic people, especially those who doesn't really reason about ethics: an universal good exists and must be "found" in every instance of every problem. My point of view is that there isn't nothing to be found, we create what we create, so let's create a little help for some bums.

mike_hock 4y ago
When you give a bum $20, is anyone gonna say you're a bad person for not giving him $100? No. But when you exploit people's dire situations for profit or to push your agenda and give them slightly better than death in return, you're not only providing a net benefit to the problem, you're also displacing and delaying any real solutions because the problem is now masked just enough that it can continue to be ignored. You're also most likely gaining a competitive advantage over others who are trying to accomplish the same goal (profit) as you using ethical means. I find it perfectly reasonable to condemn this type of behavior.
- fedeb95 4y ago
  I agree with you. Let me clarify: in your example we can see three possible branches. 1) nobody does anything, we all gain 0. 2) we profit from the bums, the bums gain 1 and we gain 100. 3) we actually do something for the bums, here the payoff is difficult to calculate but it can be either we gain 0 and the bums gain 10, or we gain 1 and the bums 10, something like that. Where's the optimal solution? Given all members of society play, as we can in fact see in society's outcome, we have all three behaviours in some proportions which a study should see if they're a Nash equilibrium or not. Anyway, what should "a" person do? Very difficult to say. My point is: given the current situation, from "a" bum's point of view, that 1 gained is better than 0, from our point of view that 100 is better than 0 and 1 we'd got helping all the bums, and if we actually helped them, it would be better for all the bums, worse for us (maybe. As I said it's hard to define the payoff here. A bumless society, in my mind, is better for everyone. As per the Nash equilibrium, payoffs are determined by individuals values, nowadays very few believe the poor should be helped consistently, many people instead believing the american dream). So this is the end. I still think a little help with a few profiting from bums is better than no help at all. Is it optimal? Probably not.
- trashtester 4y ago
  > When you give a bum $20, is anyone gonna say you're a bad person for not giving him $100? No. One single minor action doesn't make a person good or bad. The action may still be wise or unwise. If there is an old bum on the beach, one that will never be able to get out of such a situation, I don't see much harm in giving $20. If it is in a country without any welfare options, I would even call it a good action. If you give the money to a physically healthy professional adult beggar, (Maybe a member of the Roma people) I don't think it is a good action to give money. If you and enough other people continue to do so, you are contributing to creating a permanent beggar-caste in society. If you are relatively wealthy, and feel good after, I would even see it as a selfish action, as I would (in my opinion) be to pay $20 in a way that causes net, long term harm in order to gain some personal enjoyments. (Not too different from paying $20 for a BJ.) Now, for the really bad case, imagine if there is a kid in the street that had a limb cut off by a handler, to invoke pity. Giving $20 to that kid, that mostly end up in the pocket of the handler, can be a terribly destructive action. If enough people give money to that kid, the handler is likely to cut limbs off more kids to expand the business.
- feet 4y ago
  >exploit people's dire situations for profit Unfortunately, here you literally describe the concept on which capitalism is based

mike_hock 4y ago

When you give a bum $20, is anyone gonna say you're a bad person for not giving him $100? No. But when you exploit people's dire situations for profit or to push your agenda and give them slightly better than death in return, you're not only providing a net benefit to the problem, you're also displacing and delaying any real solutions because the problem is now masked just enough that it can continue to be ignored. You're also most likely gaining a competitive advantage over others who are trying to accomplish the same goal (profit) as you using ethical means. I find it perfectly reasonable to condemn this type of behavior.

fedeb95 4y ago
I agree with you. Let me clarify: in your example we can see three possible branches. 1) nobody does anything, we all gain 0. 2) we profit from the bums, the bums gain 1 and we gain 100. 3) we actually do something for the bums, here the payoff is difficult to calculate but it can be either we gain 0 and the bums gain 10, or we gain 1 and the bums 10, something like that. Where's the optimal solution? Given all members of society play, as we can in fact see in society's outcome, we have all three behaviours in some proportions which a study should see if they're a Nash equilibrium or not. Anyway, what should "a" person do? Very difficult to say. My point is: given the current situation, from "a" bum's point of view, that 1 gained is better than 0, from our point of view that 100 is better than 0 and 1 we'd got helping all the bums, and if we actually helped them, it would be better for all the bums, worse for us (maybe. As I said it's hard to define the payoff here. A bumless society, in my mind, is better for everyone. As per the Nash equilibrium, payoffs are determined by individuals values, nowadays very few believe the poor should be helped consistently, many people instead believing the american dream). So this is the end. I still think a little help with a few profiting from bums is better than no help at all. Is it optimal? Probably not.
trashtester 4y ago
> When you give a bum $20, is anyone gonna say you're a bad person for not giving him $100? No. One single minor action doesn't make a person good or bad. The action may still be wise or unwise. If there is an old bum on the beach, one that will never be able to get out of such a situation, I don't see much harm in giving $20. If it is in a country without any welfare options, I would even call it a good action. If you give the money to a physically healthy professional adult beggar, (Maybe a member of the Roma people) I don't think it is a good action to give money. If you and enough other people continue to do so, you are contributing to creating a permanent beggar-caste in society. If you are relatively wealthy, and feel good after, I would even see it as a selfish action, as I would (in my opinion) be to pay $20 in a way that causes net, long term harm in order to gain some personal enjoyments. (Not too different from paying $20 for a BJ.) Now, for the really bad case, imagine if there is a kid in the street that had a limb cut off by a handler, to invoke pity. Giving $20 to that kid, that mostly end up in the pocket of the handler, can be a terribly destructive action. If enough people give money to that kid, the handler is likely to cut limbs off more kids to expand the business.
feet 4y ago
>exploit people's dire situations for profit Unfortunately, here you literally describe the concept on which capitalism is based