4 ms·

> 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 st

> 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

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