4 ms·

The logic of weighing cost and benefits is sound, but the PR blunder of saying “the greater good” is astounding. The only correct thing is to talk about the hu

The logic of weighing cost and benefits is sound, but the PR blunder of saying “the greater good” is astounding. The only correct thing is to talk about the human suffering that you hope to alleviate. Let the listener operate their own moral balance. The idea that the greater good is a singular knowable thing and she represents it is patently offensive.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> The logic of weighing cost and benefits is sound I disagree, though that's obviously been a central question in philosophy since Aristotle. Is the logic of weighing costs and benefits sound if they had been experimenting on human babies instead of monkeys? I think most people would argue not. So if it's that you're arguing that because they're monkeys that's different, and that might be OK, but the whole reason they've chosen monkeys here is precisely because they believe their brain and neurological systems are close enough to our own that they would react similarly, for example, to having a child stolen from its mother. Honestly, I think trying to defend this in a morally consistent framework requires some mental gymnastics I'm not capable of.
- jcampbell1 4y ago
  If it is consistency you are after, then join PETA. The logic of weighing cost and benefits is always sound, but there are cases where it is so one sided that it is offensive to pose the question. Experimenting on babies falls in that category. I suppose at this point my personal opinion on this issue is relevant to you. I am personally okay with Neuralink because it isn’t implausibility far from someone walking from a wheelchair. This specific research miles apart both from the welfare side (it requires emotional harm to the monkeys) and the benefits are far less tangible. I think this research should be put up for review and if I were a reviewer I’d start from a position that this needs to stop. I suppose my meta point is that it is okay to have red lines and argue them, but peppering the discussion with arguments against logic unnecessarily makes your commentary less persuasive to me.
- bambax 4y ago
  > So if it's that you're arguing that because they're monkeys that's different, and that might be OK, but the whole reason they've chosen monkeys here is precisely because they believe their brain and neurological systems are close enough to our own that they would react similarly, for example, to having a child stolen from its mother. Exactly this.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
>The idea that the greater good is a singular knowable thing and she represents it is patently offensive. Yet you have no qualms making absolute statements about the greater good, that denies their opinion. You seem very certain that there is no singular truth that they are wrong

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

> The logic of weighing cost and benefits is sound I disagree, though that's obviously been a central question in philosophy since Aristotle. Is the logic of weighing costs and benefits sound if they had been experimenting on human babies instead of monkeys? I think most people would argue not. So if it's that you're arguing that because they're monkeys that's different, and that might be OK, but the whole reason they've chosen monkeys here is precisely because they believe their brain and neurological systems are close enough to our own that they would react similarly, for example, to having a child stolen from its mother. Honestly, I think trying to defend this in a morally consistent framework requires some mental gymnastics I'm not capable of.

jcampbell1 4y ago
If it is consistency you are after, then join PETA. The logic of weighing cost and benefits is always sound, but there are cases where it is so one sided that it is offensive to pose the question. Experimenting on babies falls in that category. I suppose at this point my personal opinion on this issue is relevant to you. I am personally okay with Neuralink because it isn’t implausibility far from someone walking from a wheelchair. This specific research miles apart both from the welfare side (it requires emotional harm to the monkeys) and the benefits are far less tangible. I think this research should be put up for review and if I were a reviewer I’d start from a position that this needs to stop. I suppose my meta point is that it is okay to have red lines and argue them, but peppering the discussion with arguments against logic unnecessarily makes your commentary less persuasive to me.
bambax 4y ago
> So if it's that you're arguing that because they're monkeys that's different, and that might be OK, but the whole reason they've chosen monkeys here is precisely because they believe their brain and neurological systems are close enough to our own that they would react similarly, for example, to having a child stolen from its mother. Exactly this.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

>The idea that the greater good is a singular knowable thing and she represents it is patently offensive. Yet you have no qualms making absolute statements about the greater good, that denies their opinion. You seem very certain that there is no singular truth that they are wrong