5 ms·

My response is titled: “Against Academic, Dead-end Philosophical Arguments” Instead of arguing the definition of morality, just go out and help other people. T

My response is titled: “Against Academic, Dead-end Philosophical Arguments” Instead of arguing the definition of morality, just go out and help other people. The end.

biotinker 4y ago
Subtitle: "Instead of arguing Utilitarianism vs Deontology, everyone should just follow Virtue Ethics"
User23 4y ago
That's a lovely sentiment, but it quickly runs into problems. Sometimes it's hard to know if an helpful action will produce a positive outcome. Certainly, just giving people what they ask for won't necessarily do that. For example it's probably better to not help an alcoholic with violent tendencies acquire more liquor, even if he asks very nicely. It's almost as if there's some sort of a need for a normative science of what acts are truly helpful in the sense of improving lives and which aren't. I propose we call those acts that are helpful and make things better "good." Then we can go about trying to figure out what acts are "good" and under what circumstances in some kind of systematic way. Let's give this enterprise a Greek name to make it sound more impressive.
- smitty1e 4y ago
  I submit that a possible test for whether "helpful action will produce a good outcome" is whether individuals and families are grown internally in the direction of maturity and joy. Actions that externalize the feedback and set up gatekeepers to manage matters seem to hit diminishing returns rapidly. In a musical metaphor, life is jazz. An Effective Altruism seems like so many reams of sheet music that lack joy.
- michaelt 4y ago
  > That's a lovely sentiment, but it quickly runs into problems. Sometimes it's hard to know if an helpful action will produce a positive outcome. One of the strengths of the 'treat tropical diseases' arm of EA is that 99% people can agree that fewer deaths from malaria is a positive outcome, without having to know WTF "metaethics" and "anti-realism" and "deontology" mean
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    They just have to know that (1) the organizational overhead is not too high, that (2) that org you found on the web isn’t a scam, that (3) the distribution network is functioning, that (4) malaria nets will be used for that purpose and not be used to fish. Maybe more?
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    That's definitely a good thing, though the terminology isn't that scary. "metaethics": Study of moral thought. Rather arguing about whether euthanasia is a good thing or not, we're arguing about lofty matters like "what is morality anyway?" "anti-realism": The rejection of the idea that a sentence with a moral statement is true or false. Eg, an anti-realist would look at "euthanasia is a good thing" and say that in reality you can't say "that's true", or "that wrong" like you might to "There's a bottle of milk in the fridge". In reality it means something more like "Euthanasia is a good thing if you subscribe to my particular values", or "The thought of being able to end my life when I want makes me happy". "deontology": Moral behavior is following rules without regards of any consequences. Eg, if the rules are "don't lie", then you don't. No matter what happens as a result of that. If innocent people die, you still did a good thing. As opposed to consequentialism which holds that it's the consequences what matter. Lying to murderers is a good thing because it keeps victims alive. Lying about being qualified to build a bridge is bad because you'll probably kill people.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    Huh, no they can't. Reducing malaria deaths can be extremely immoral depending on how it's done. And this is no mere academic problem. Some attempts to eradicate malaria have been ethically dubious e.g. bulk spraying whole areas with anti-malarial drugs. If it works, great, you eradicate it (in that area). If it doesn't you just bred and unleashed drug-resistant malaria on whole populations.
    - User23 4y ago
      Malaria is a great example. The USA used to have endemic malaria as far north as New York. It was eradicated by the CDC carpet bombing the country with DDT[1]. Was that a good thing? I’m inclined to believe that on the balance it was, but there’s no denying that mass spraying pesticides had negative consequences. The question then is how do we determine if that action was justified? [1] https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history
kevingadd 4y ago
When "going out and helping other people" you need to carefully evaluate any side effects or consequences, and also recognize that some methods of helping are more wasteful than others. Would it be better to buy 10 needy people health insurance, or to use that money advocating for health care reforms? What if it's 100 people instead? In general, should you act locally or act globally? Should you invest your money to use it for big improvements, or spend on an ongoing basis making small improvements instead?
- kipchak 4y ago
  I don't think I would consider a good action wasteful, even if their might have been a outcome with more of a benefit. While it's worth considering for example what the best way to improve overall health is as there's no real objective way to evaluate the superiority of advocating for reform versus helping people directly there isn't much more information available past your present biases and past experiences to sway you one way or the other. I might be able to for example estimate that 1M spent on reform might have x% chance of improving outcomes for y number people, but it would be so tortured of an inference it's really just a guess based on what you already think. As a result I think going with your best guess is good enough, to avoid decision paralysis if nothing else.

My response is titled: “Against Academic, Dead-end Philosophical Arguments” Instead of arguing the definition of morality, just go out and help other people. The end.

biotinker 4y ago

Subtitle: "Instead of arguing Utilitarianism vs Deontology, everyone should just follow Virtue Ethics"

User23 4y ago

That's a lovely sentiment, but it quickly runs into problems. Sometimes it's hard to know if an helpful action will produce a positive outcome. Certainly, just giving people what they ask for won't necessarily do that. For example it's probably better to not help an alcoholic with violent tendencies acquire more liquor, even if he asks very nicely. It's almost as if there's some sort of a need for a normative science of what acts are truly helpful in the sense of improving lives and which aren't. I propose we call those acts that are helpful and make things better "good." Then we can go about trying to figure out what acts are "good" and under what circumstances in some kind of systematic way. Let's give this enterprise a Greek name to make it sound more impressive.

smitty1e 4y ago
I submit that a possible test for whether "helpful action will produce a good outcome" is whether individuals and families are grown internally in the direction of maturity and joy. Actions that externalize the feedback and set up gatekeepers to manage matters seem to hit diminishing returns rapidly. In a musical metaphor, life is jazz. An Effective Altruism seems like so many reams of sheet music that lack joy.
michaelt 4y ago
> That's a lovely sentiment, but it quickly runs into problems. Sometimes it's hard to know if an helpful action will produce a positive outcome. One of the strengths of the 'treat tropical diseases' arm of EA is that 99% people can agree that fewer deaths from malaria is a positive outcome, without having to know WTF "metaethics" and "anti-realism" and "deontology" mean
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  They just have to know that (1) the organizational overhead is not too high, that (2) that org you found on the web isn’t a scam, that (3) the distribution network is functioning, that (4) malaria nets will be used for that purpose and not be used to fish. Maybe more?
- dale_glass 4y ago
  That's definitely a good thing, though the terminology isn't that scary. "metaethics": Study of moral thought. Rather arguing about whether euthanasia is a good thing or not, we're arguing about lofty matters like "what is morality anyway?" "anti-realism": The rejection of the idea that a sentence with a moral statement is true or false. Eg, an anti-realist would look at "euthanasia is a good thing" and say that in reality you can't say "that's true", or "that wrong" like you might to "There's a bottle of milk in the fridge". In reality it means something more like "Euthanasia is a good thing if you subscribe to my particular values", or "The thought of being able to end my life when I want makes me happy". "deontology": Moral behavior is following rules without regards of any consequences. Eg, if the rules are "don't lie", then you don't. No matter what happens as a result of that. If innocent people die, you still did a good thing. As opposed to consequentialism which holds that it's the consequences what matter. Lying to murderers is a good thing because it keeps victims alive. Lying about being qualified to build a bridge is bad because you'll probably kill people.
- origin_path 4y ago
  Huh, no they can't. Reducing malaria deaths can be extremely immoral depending on how it's done. And this is no mere academic problem. Some attempts to eradicate malaria have been ethically dubious e.g. bulk spraying whole areas with anti-malarial drugs. If it works, great, you eradicate it (in that area). If it doesn't you just bred and unleashed drug-resistant malaria on whole populations.
  - User23 4y ago
    Malaria is a great example. The USA used to have endemic malaria as far north as New York. It was eradicated by the CDC carpet bombing the country with DDT[1]. Was that a good thing? I’m inclined to believe that on the balance it was, but there’s no denying that mass spraying pesticides had negative consequences. The question then is how do we determine if that action was justified? [1] https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history

kevingadd 4y ago

When "going out and helping other people" you need to carefully evaluate any side effects or consequences, and also recognize that some methods of helping are more wasteful than others. Would it be better to buy 10 needy people health insurance, or to use that money advocating for health care reforms? What if it's 100 people instead? In general, should you act locally or act globally? Should you invest your money to use it for big improvements, or spend on an ongoing basis making small improvements instead?

kipchak 4y ago
I don't think I would consider a good action wasteful, even if their might have been a outcome with more of a benefit. While it's worth considering for example what the best way to improve overall health is as there's no real objective way to evaluate the superiority of advocating for reform versus helping people directly there isn't much more information available past your present biases and past experiences to sway you one way or the other. I might be able to for example estimate that 1M spent on reform might have x% chance of improving outcomes for y number people, but it would be so tortured of an inference it's really just a guess based on what you already think. As a result I think going with your best guess is good enough, to avoid decision paralysis if nothing else.