4 ms·
Perfect information is impossible, and the information held by an elected body is infinitely less perfect. There is no way they can take into account the subjec
by gw 13y ago
Perfect information is impossible, and the information held by an elected body is infinitely less perfect. There is no way they can take into account the subjective values of each person better than the people themselves, so it will always tend to be a majority forcing its preferences on a minority.
I make it no secret that I object to this. I think it is unethical and I certainly agree that I won't persuade you on that point. However to some degree I think you do see a problem with it, which is why you try to downplay the costs by pointing out that it is "only" 50p or "only" 5 minutes. If forcing your risk tolerance on others is indeed ethical, this psychological hedging wouldn't be necessary.
- Nursie 13y agoNo I have no problem with it, the costs are miniscule compared to the results. There is no hedging here unless you mean a rational weighing up of costs and benefits. It is entirely ethical to rule out the worse risks in society, because fundamentally it makes it better for all of us. Particularly the vulnerable in whatever form they take. Not everyone is even capable of rational risk assessment, and many of the rest of us don't want to have to be constantly on guard. I'm sorry if this offends you. I'm glad you admit the outcome doesn't matter to you, only your ideals.