5 ms·
So you advocate doing things you find morally objectionable while telling yourself that it is the right thing to do because you can give the money away afterwar
by awakeasleep 13y ago
So you advocate doing things you find morally objectionable while telling yourself that it is the right thing to do because you can give the money away afterwards? That sounds insane to me.
- Aqueous 13y agoI think it's morally objectionable to waste a rare opportunity when one could just as easily channel that opportunity towards the benefits of others.
- Varcht 13y agoThis really does not compute for me, so it's bad to stop ruining people's lives if in ruining their lives you could help other people's lives? What if the people addicted and raging over Flappy Bird are the same ones that you think should be helped?
- derefr 13y agoYou're conflating two acts: he has produced a game, and being addicted to games ruins some people's lives. But if he withdraws his game, their lives don't suddenly get un-ruined. They just switch to some other game. Basically, you're suggesting that an equilibrium of (1 person-hour stolen by addiction : 1 person-hour of ad impressions given to charity) should be replaced with (1 person-hour stolen by addiction [just to some other game] : 0 person-hours of ad impressions given to charity). Note that there is no "0 person-hours stolen by addiction" option.
- Aqueous 13y agoI mean let's just think about it here. Is Flappy Bird really ruining people's lives? Flappy Bird? Really?
- 97s 13y agoYeah this is basically like drug dealers saying I give all the money to charity.
- derefr 13y agoActually yes: a casino run by a cult of effective altruists would probably do more for the world than most charities.