3 ms·

Stated without argument: "EA, in its cold calculus, can justify the unjustifiable in pursuit of an ill-defined "greater good." I'd love to hear an actual argume

by Arnt 3y ago

Stated without argument: "EA, in its cold calculus, can justify the unjustifiable in pursuit of an ill-defined "greater good." I'd love to hear an actual argument for that. What sort of cold calculus can justify the unjustifiable? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? I'd love to hear an actual argument for it. I don't want to think that Joan Westenberg (whoever that is) is a purveyor of twisted words. (There are more examples in the article, I picked one because I like examples.)

injeolmi_love 3y ago
EA’s primary philosophical foundation is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism in its standard form only cares about outcomes that maximize global utility for humanity. It does not accept any deontological ethics. Utilitarianism is evil because it allows evil actions to be taken as long as that maximizes utility, thus justifying the unjustifiable. Utilitarianism is wrong because it is still evil to commit fraud even to save human lives. However utilitarianism is popular for people with power, because they can use it to justify their evil actions as for the greater good. Even if they are sincere, their actions are still evil; even if SBF succeeded instead of failing, and sincerely wanted to stop climate change, he would still and rightfully be a criminal.
- Arnt 3y ago
  Aren't you saying that the unjustifiable is justifiable given the right cost/effect tradeoff? But that the same time saying that doing so is wrong because the unjustifiable is unjustifiable?
  - injeolmi_love 3y ago
    No, I’m contrasting utilitarianism with deontology and explaining why deontological ethics are preferable. Utilitarianism is concerned with effects while deontology is concerned with actions and/or intents. That said there are several arguments from within utilitarianism that support deontology. For instance Bentham mugging indicates a utilitarian should pretend to support a deontology.

by Arnt 3y ago

injeolmi_love 3y ago

EA’s primary philosophical foundation is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism in its standard form only cares about outcomes that maximize global utility for humanity. It does not accept any deontological ethics. Utilitarianism is evil because it allows evil actions to be taken as long as that maximizes utility, thus justifying the unjustifiable. Utilitarianism is wrong because it is still evil to commit fraud even to save human lives. However utilitarianism is popular for people with power, because they can use it to justify their evil actions as for the greater good. Even if they are sincere, their actions are still evil; even if SBF succeeded instead of failing, and sincerely wanted to stop climate change, he would still and rightfully be a criminal.

Arnt 3y ago
Aren't you saying that the unjustifiable is justifiable given the right cost/effect tradeoff? But that the same time saying that doing so is wrong because the unjustifiable is unjustifiable?
- injeolmi_love 3y ago
  No, I’m contrasting utilitarianism with deontology and explaining why deontological ethics are preferable. Utilitarianism is concerned with effects while deontology is concerned with actions and/or intents. That said there are several arguments from within utilitarianism that support deontology. For instance Bentham mugging indicates a utilitarian should pretend to support a deontology.