4 ms·

I find the whole idea of dealing with this scenario in absolutes as iffy because you can almost always find a grey area. e.g. Bob has created a vaccine which,

I find the whole idea of dealing with this scenario in absolutes as iffy because you can almost always find a grey area. e.g. Bob has created a vaccine which, he has discovered accidentally, will prevent millions of people dying of X every year in Africa. He has also decided not to share how he made it because he hates black people. In this situation should humanity just accept his decision? Would force (or threat of) be justified on the basis that the end good outweighs the methods. Tricky, and I do not know the answer, but I do not think it can be a moral absolute.

dTal 13y ago
I don't think it's a moral question at all - I think it's a pragmatic one. We are presumably agreed that it would be a better world if Bob's vaccine were released to the world, regardless of what Bob thinks. The only question is, what's the best way of getting that to happen? Do we reward Bob for releasing it? Punish him for not releasing it? Hack his computer and nick his research? I think, morally, we'd be perfectly justified in doing all of these things to save millions of lives - the question of what do in the general case merely hinges on what's most effective, carefully considering second-order effects (for example, torturing Bob until he tells you the vaccine formula might work a treat the first time this happens, but next time somebody discovers a vaccine they're gonna keep quiet about it, which is harmful). Actually, I think a lot of political problems are caused by confusing pragmatic issues with moral ones. Patents (IP in general, really) are a great example, with "trade secrets are slowing the economy down, lets provide incentives for publishing them" mutating grossly into "inventors ought to be rewarded for their inventions, at any economic cost".
- hardwaresofton 13y ago
  So I think a lot of people are misunderstanding -- I definitely recognize that it is a moral question in whether the greater populace is justified in doing those things. But I wanted to make it clear, that you shouldn't skip over the fact that the law making body may be trampling on a human right. It sure seems like a human right to be as shitty as you want. Or to be as left-leaning as you want. Or to be as conservative as you want. The problem is if the right Government is in place, all these things will either be controlled or suppressed. We're forced to do a lot of things in our society, but generally everyone takes a second to think about forcing people to think about things that step on rights.
hardwaresofton 13y ago
I would like to think that the ends do not justify the means... I could give a bunch of ridiculous, overblown examples, but means are pretty important (especially to the people who might be negatively effected)

dTal 13y ago

I don't think it's a moral question at all - I think it's a pragmatic one. We are presumably agreed that it would be a better world if Bob's vaccine were released to the world, regardless of what Bob thinks. The only question is, what's the best way of getting that to happen? Do we reward Bob for releasing it? Punish him for not releasing it? Hack his computer and nick his research? I think, morally, we'd be perfectly justified in doing all of these things to save millions of lives - the question of what do in the general case merely hinges on what's most effective, carefully considering second-order effects (for example, torturing Bob until he tells you the vaccine formula might work a treat the first time this happens, but next time somebody discovers a vaccine they're gonna keep quiet about it, which is harmful). Actually, I think a lot of political problems are caused by confusing pragmatic issues with moral ones. Patents (IP in general, really) are a great example, with "trade secrets are slowing the economy down, lets provide incentives for publishing them" mutating grossly into "inventors ought to be rewarded for their inventions, at any economic cost".

hardwaresofton 13y ago
So I think a lot of people are misunderstanding -- I definitely recognize that it is a moral question in whether the greater populace is justified in doing those things. But I wanted to make it clear, that you shouldn't skip over the fact that the law making body may be trampling on a human right. It sure seems like a human right to be as shitty as you want. Or to be as left-leaning as you want. Or to be as conservative as you want. The problem is if the right Government is in place, all these things will either be controlled or suppressed. We're forced to do a lot of things in our society, but generally everyone takes a second to think about forcing people to think about things that step on rights.

hardwaresofton 13y ago

I would like to think that the ends do not justify the means... I could give a bunch of ridiculous, overblown examples, but means are pretty important (especially to the people who might be negatively effected)