5 ms·

I'm sceptical about handing all ethical decisions to 3-4 big companies. It seems to be in line with "authority being good as long as it aligns with my opinions"

I'm sceptical about handing all ethical decisions to 3-4 big companies. It seems to be in line with "authority being good as long as it aligns with my opinions". Should the companies micromanage based on their beliefs?

marginalia_nu 4y ago
It's ultimately how we act to change the world that is good or bad. Some entities (such as big companies) have a disproportionately large impact on the world, and as a result, are laudable or culpable more often than other, smaller entities.
- loa_in_ 4y ago
  Arguably expecting them to make decisions in these matters gives them even more disproportionate influence. People should be holding people coming up with the ads accountable according to more fundamental societal frameworks, like courts of law or some kind of societal moral court
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    This is a power they have regardless of expectations. The thing that makes them culpable is what they did (or did not do), and how it affected the world.
    - xupybd 4y ago
      They're choosing not to swing the balance. If they interfere in any direction there will be a significant portion of society that finds the direction they pick to be evil.
      - marginalia_nu 4y ago
        Turning a blind eye like that doesn't actually liberate them from complicity. Inaction can very much be action within a moral context.
      - elcomet 4y ago
        Not acting is a choice, and it can swing the balance as much as acting.
        loa_in_ 4y ago
        But not acting is the only choice that allows someone else to make the... choice. And that's the crux, it's not their business to judge people, it's (greater) society's business.
        elcomet 4y ago
        Is it really? Do women who see those anti-abortion clinic ads have the choice to see them? They don't really, at least not an informed choice.
hackerlight 4y ago
We'd all prefer laws to be the guardrails, but there's always going to be a grey area that's simultaneously legal and unethical and we shouldn't think it's acceptable to behave unethically as long as it's legal. Especially when these large companies help shape those legal guardrails with lobbying efforts.
- suddenclarity 4y ago
  My point is, do we really want these companies to decide what's ethical and not.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Yes if the only alternative in actual present reality is that they behave unethically. It's the second worst option out of more than 2 options.
    - xupybd 4y ago
      So we can say with certainty that the most ethical advice for all of these women is to recommend abortions? I think this is a more complex issue than you're suggesting.
      - hackerlight 4y ago
        Not disagreeing, I was speaking more in the abstract.
        xupybd 4y ago
        Sorry, I made a few incorrect assumptions there.
  - hulitu 4y ago
    no, but they are already doing it.

marginalia_nu 4y ago

It's ultimately how we act to change the world that is good or bad. Some entities (such as big companies) have a disproportionately large impact on the world, and as a result, are laudable or culpable more often than other, smaller entities.

loa_in_ 4y ago
Arguably expecting them to make decisions in these matters gives them even more disproportionate influence. People should be holding people coming up with the ads accountable according to more fundamental societal frameworks, like courts of law or some kind of societal moral court
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  This is a power they have regardless of expectations. The thing that makes them culpable is what they did (or did not do), and how it affected the world.
  - xupybd 4y ago
    They're choosing not to swing the balance. If they interfere in any direction there will be a significant portion of society that finds the direction they pick to be evil.
    - marginalia_nu 4y ago
      Turning a blind eye like that doesn't actually liberate them from complicity. Inaction can very much be action within a moral context.
    - elcomet 4y ago
      Not acting is a choice, and it can swing the balance as much as acting.
      - loa_in_ 4y ago
        But not acting is the only choice that allows someone else to make the... choice. And that's the crux, it's not their business to judge people, it's (greater) society's business.
        elcomet 4y ago
        Is it really? Do women who see those anti-abortion clinic ads have the choice to see them? They don't really, at least not an informed choice.

hackerlight 4y ago

We'd all prefer laws to be the guardrails, but there's always going to be a grey area that's simultaneously legal and unethical and we shouldn't think it's acceptable to behave unethically as long as it's legal. Especially when these large companies help shape those legal guardrails with lobbying efforts.

suddenclarity 4y ago
My point is, do we really want these companies to decide what's ethical and not.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Yes if the only alternative in actual present reality is that they behave unethically. It's the second worst option out of more than 2 options.
  - xupybd 4y ago
    So we can say with certainty that the most ethical advice for all of these women is to recommend abortions? I think this is a more complex issue than you're suggesting.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      Not disagreeing, I was speaking more in the abstract.
      - xupybd 4y ago
        Sorry, I made a few incorrect assumptions there.
- hulitu 4y ago
  no, but they are already doing it.