> PETA did offer conditional help: If a family went vegan for 30 days, PETA would pay off their water bill...
I guess the community swimming pool is going vegan this summer :)
The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
31–40 of 69 posts
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#32I somewhat share this view, which I now learn is called Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (don't know if by the author or academically). Let me clarify my differences: interacting with a problem should be worded like "creating the definition of a problem". This changes things because saying things, as I view the world, is an action like any other. But my conclusions from this are the opposite of what the author ascribes to this Copenhagen school: defining a problem is an action, helping a few bums is another action, and generally it's considered a good one (especially by the helped bums I think). So it's "good" (I handle this term with great care...) I think the problem lies in the following assumption nearly every people makes, even relativistic people, especially those who doesn't really reason about ethics: an universal good exists and must be "found" in every instance of every problem. My point of view is that there isn't nothing to be found, we create what we create, so let's create a little help for some bums.
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#33Reminds me of how Facebook wanted to offer free internet access to a limited number of services to people in India and Africa. My understanding is it got canned because people were mad about it not being full internet access. Full gift horse in mouth. The people who would rather others have no internet access than limited internet irk me so badly.
If I remember correctly it was facebook access, not internet. I can imagine it is security risk for local goverments. Facebook could control elections etc...
No post body was provided.
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#34This article seems like a major failure of both imagination and empathy. Paying homeless people $20 a day to be wifi hotspots or paying people's bills on the condition that they become vegan helps in the moment , but these solutions are actively harmful in the long term if practiced as a default response to the problems they ostensibly address. Such "solutions" calcify in people's minds, and provide a convenient excu…
Yes I think we fear a slippery slope. We don't want to go there, we prefer the status quo. The article suggests short term solutions but do not delve into the long term consequences of those solutions.
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#35I somewhat share this view, which I now learn is called Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (don't know if by the author or academically). Let me clarify my differences: interacting with a problem should be worded like "creating the definition of a problem". This changes things because saying things, as I view the world, is an action like any other. But my conclusions from this are the opposite of what the author asc…
When you give a bum $20, is anyone gonna say you're a bad person for not giving him $100? No.
But when you exploit people's dire situations for profit or to push your agenda and give them slightly better than death in return, you're not only providing a net benefit to the problem, you're also displacing and delaying any real solutions because the problem is now masked just enough that it can continue to be ignored. You're also most likely gaining a competitive advantage over others who are trying to accomplish the same goal (profit) as you using ethical means.
I find it perfectly reasonable to condemn this type of behavior.
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word "exploit" is thrown around a lot. AFAIKT it only means that other people are having an interaction that the speaker finds repulsive. This makes "exploitation" in the eye of the beholder, and not something that can be objectively measured or discussed.
Exploitation is any relationship where one party profits much more than the other party. It is opposed to a mutually beneficial relationship, where both parties profit approximately the same. Of course, the crux of whether something is mutually beneficial or exploitatative is how you define "much more" vs "approximately the same". In (chattel) slavery, it is quite clear that the slave gets almost nothing, while the m…
>It is opposed to a mutually beneficial relationship, where both parties profit approximately the same.
That's not what a mutually beneficial relationship is.
>Some people also consider most employment contracts as exploitative (wage slavery), as the owners of a company extract more money than the workers get in compensation (profit is essentially exactly the difference between what the workers and capital owners were payed and what the vue of their work was - and it is entirely the property of the owners, not the workers). Whether you believe the difference between the value you bring to the company and the wages you are paid is large or small will more or less determine whether you think the company is exploiting you or you are in a mutually beneficial relationship with it - and neither option is objectively right or wrong.
And now I see that you're simply spewing socialist ideology with no grounding in reality.
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#37there's a world of difference between offering someone some money to be a WiFi hotspot and going vegan. one asks them to do some menial labour for money, the other merely asks them to stop paying for abuse and torture of animals they do. there's nothing exploitative in asking one to not throw out their gay son or to not torture animals for self-titillation.
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#38I somewhat share this view, which I now learn is called Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (don't know if by the author or academically). Let me clarify my differences: interacting with a problem should be worded like "creating the definition of a problem". This changes things because saying things, as I view the world, is an action like any other. But my conclusions from this are the opposite of what the author asc…
When you give a bum $20, is anyone gonna say you're a bad person for not giving him $100? No. But when you exploit people's dire situations for profit or to push your agenda and give them slightly better than death in return, you're not only providing a net benefit to the problem, you're also displacing and delaying any real solutions because the problem is now masked just enough that it can continue to be ignored. Y…
I agree with you. Let me clarify: in your example we can see three possible branches. 1) nobody does anything, we all gain 0. 2) we profit from the bums, the bums gain 1 and we gain 100. 3) we actually do something for the bums, here the payoff is difficult to calculate but it can be either we gain 0 and the bums gain 10, or we gain 1 and the bums 10, something like that. Where's the optimal solution? Given all members of society play, as we can in fact see in society's outcome, we have all three behaviours in some proportions which a study should see if they're a Nash equilibrium or not. Anyway, what should "a" person do? Very difficult to say. My point is: given the current situation, from "a" bum's point of view, that 1 gained is better than 0, from our point of view that 100 is better than 0 and 1 we'd got helping all the bums, and if we actually helped them, it would be better for all the bums, worse for us (maybe. As I said it's hard to define the payoff here. A bumless society, in my mind, is better for everyone. As per the Nash equilibrium, payoffs are determined by individuals values, nowadays very few believe the poor should be helped consistently, many people instead believing the american dream). So this is the end. I still think a little help with a few profiting from bums is better than no help at all. Is it optimal? Probably not.
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#39This article seems like a major failure of both imagination and empathy. Paying homeless people $20 a day to be wifi hotspots or paying people's bills on the condition that they become vegan helps in the moment , but these solutions are actively harmful in the long term if practiced as a default response to the problems they ostensibly address. Such "solutions" calcify in people's minds, and provide a convenient excu…
You're making two claims here that I think are interesting: 1) PETA paying someone's water bills (or SXSW paying homeless folks) is harmful in the long term, because it makes society fixing the overall issue less likely. 2) That harm is greater then the harm of their water being cut off (or not having that $20). To the first, I'd say we're clearly not solving these issues whether or not we let PETA pay water bills. T…
I think these claims go against the way progress normally happens, organizations arising to distribute money to fix problems in the short term often are a precursor of a larger legislative fix.
If nobody is trying to fix a problem, nobody organizing around fixing a problem, why would the system think the problem was at all important?
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#40This article seems like a major failure of both imagination and empathy. Paying homeless people $20 a day to be wifi hotspots or paying people's bills on the condition that they become vegan helps in the moment , but these solutions are actively harmful in the long term if practiced as a default response to the problems they ostensibly address. Such "solutions" calcify in people's minds, and provide a convenient excu…
Perfect is the enemy of good. Sure, giving a homeless person $20 doesn’t solve homelessness but it does a lot more good than dreaming about utopian systemic shifts that are never going to happen.
Good enough is also the enemy of better. Feels like you are getting caught up in some version of the repugnant conclusion.