4 ms·

"When is it OK to take a wrong/bad action in order to prevent some really wrong/bad event?" "How wrong was this action?" "How bad does the event have to be to

by cvoss 3y ago

"When is it OK to take a wrong/bad action in order to prevent some really wrong/bad event?" "How wrong was this action?" "How bad does the event have to be to justify the wrong action?" "Who is responsible for making the judgment call?" "If that party shirks, does it fall to anyone next?" "Who is morally accountable for the bad event given that it could be avoided via certain actions?" The scientific consensus you refer to gives important and helpful facts that inform this discussion by characterizing the bad event in detail. But the scientific facts cannot answer the foregoing questions, as you hope, because it provides no insight on any of the other facets. That's why there's debate and discussion rather than an open and shut case.

cowpig 3y ago
Yes! I totally agree. The conversation is really important. But in this case the costs (people dying, or in many cases losing months of their lives to extreme fatigue, other health problems, the overloading of medical infrastructure causing many other problems, etc) far, far outweigh the costs of a hypothetical tyranny situation.
- JacobThreeThree 3y ago
  What causal evidence is there that people posting on social media caused deaths and "losing months of their lives to extreme fatigue"?
- spookthesunset 3y ago
  > people dying, or in many cases losing months of their lives to extreme fatigue, other health problems, the overloading of medical infrastructure causing many other problems, etc Except none of these "experts" had any clue if their costly measures would work at all. And to this day you can't look at a chart and see a major difference between anywhere. Virus is gonna virus. You cannot control it. Simply put, you were lied to. Break out of your echo chamber and listen to people calling you out. They are right, you are not. There is more to life than a myopic focus on exactly one form of illness.

by cvoss 3y ago

cowpig 3y ago

Yes! I totally agree. The conversation is really important. But in this case the costs (people dying, or in many cases losing months of their lives to extreme fatigue, other health problems, the overloading of medical infrastructure causing many other problems, etc) far, far outweigh the costs of a hypothetical tyranny situation.

JacobThreeThree 3y ago
What causal evidence is there that people posting on social media caused deaths and "losing months of their lives to extreme fatigue"?
spookthesunset 3y ago
> people dying, or in many cases losing months of their lives to extreme fatigue, other health problems, the overloading of medical infrastructure causing many other problems, etc Except none of these "experts" had any clue if their costly measures would work at all. And to this day you can't look at a chart and see a major difference between anywhere. Virus is gonna virus. You cannot control it. Simply put, you were lied to. Break out of your echo chamber and listen to people calling you out. They are right, you are not. There is more to life than a myopic focus on exactly one form of illness.