4 ms·
> Mighty big asterisk on the “all” there. As long as [unacceptable sacrifice] is objectively smaller than [benefit], it works as an analogy for real-world cons
by smt88 3y ago
> Mighty big asterisk on the “all” there.
As long as [unacceptable sacrifice] is objectively smaller than [benefit], it works as an analogy for real-world consequentialism like the develoment/use of the atom bomb. The book went to some lengths to tell you with certainty that the sacrifice was smaller than the benefit.
- ahepp 3y agoI think their point is that a straightforward reading of the statement “this had good consequences for all of humanity” would need to be evaluated by examining the finite equivalent “there does not exist a member of humanity for whom this had bad consequences”. Hence they propose an asterisk next to “all”, because “all of humanity” means something more like “humanity as a whole (decided by someone?)” or “humanity (the ones who aren’t dead?)”