Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

blog.jaibot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#41

Post by V-2 »

stadia42 wrote: post #12
somesortofthing wrote: post #5

This 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…

"repulsive to the general public because regular people, on some level, understand that everyone has an unconditional right to the safety and dignity" I want to point out a couple errors in your statement. 1. The correct verb to use is "feel", rather than "understand". "Understand" can only refer to an objective fact that can be verified, proven, etc. 2. While some "regular people" (including myself) share your views…

People generally do have the right to safety, but it's not "unconditional", because there are other values such as personal freedom. We compromise between those conflicting values. If I drive a car, I create SOME risk that I run you over. I'm not allowed to drive intoxicated, or without a driver's license, or above certain speed limit, because we find that level of risk unacceptable. But if I drive perfectly sober, within the speed limit etc., I STILL put you at SOME level of risk. I could still lose control over the wheel and smash into a passerby. Statistically speaking, we know it will happen for every million car rides or so. But we consider this level of risk acceptable. The margin is low enough for me to exercise my freedom. So yes, your safety matters, but not unconditionally. It matters to a certain - arbitrary - extent. At least that's the social consensus.

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#42

Post by mejutoco »

archon1410 wrote: post #37

there'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.

I see a world of difference but in the opposite direction.

You could phrase it as paying someone to be vegan is paying them to limit which aliments they put into their body. To me, although I see nothing wrong in veganism, the second one is much more intimate and questionable.

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#43

Post by trashtester »

mike_hock wrote: post #35
fedeb95 wrote: post #32

I 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…

> When you give a bum $20, is anyone gonna say you're a bad person for not giving him $100? No.

One single minor action doesn't make a person good or bad. The action may still be wise or unwise.

If there is an old bum on the beach, one that will never be able to get out of such a situation, I don't see much harm in giving $20. If it is in a country without any welfare options, I would even call it a good action.

If you give the money to a physically healthy professional adult beggar, (Maybe a member of the Roma people) I don't think it is a good action to give money. If you and enough other people continue to do so, you are contributing to creating a permanent beggar-caste in society. If you are relatively wealthy, and feel good after, I would even see it as a selfish action, as I would (in my opinion) be to pay $20 in a way that causes net, long term harm in order to gain some personal enjoyments. (Not too different from paying $20 for a BJ.)

Now, for the really bad case, imagine if there is a kid in the street that had a limb cut off by a handler, to invoke pity. Giving $20 to that kid, that mostly end up in the pocket of the handler, can be a terribly destructive action. If enough people give money to that kid, the handler is likely to cut limbs off more kids to expand the business.

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#44

Post by trashtester »

archon1410 wrote: post #37

there'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.

I agree. Paying someone to go vegan is only a smidge better than paying them to get sterilized.

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#45

Post by rimliu »

GuB-42 wrote: post #13

The argument that we can profit from the poor by giving them a small amount of money that is better than the nothing they usually get, and still be criticized because it is not enough reminds me of the ultimatum game. Here we have two players, the first player has a plan to win a a million dollars, but for the plan to work, the second player needs to cooperate, if he doesn't everything is lost. The plan is perfectly…

Not sure if accepting $1 is perfectly rational. Unless you ignore the fact that other player is a human. Otherwise you know, that if they can win more and if you do not cooperate they will pass much bigger opportunity you can very well assume that they will be willing to pay way more than just one $1. Supply and demand.

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#46

Post by trashtester »

mejutoco wrote: post #42
archon1410 wrote: post #37

there'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.

I see a world of difference but in the opposite direction. You could phrase it as paying someone to be vegan is paying them to limit which aliments they put into their body. To me, although I see nothing wrong in veganism, the second one is much more intimate and questionable.

One problem with paying some person with few resources to go vegan, is that they may not have the capacity to find vegan food that provides all essential nutrients, meaning you can actually cause them to suffer from malnutrition.

That's kind of like paying for sex, when you have an STD. Not only do you pay people for something they may find disgusting, there is even a risk that you cause actual harm to them.

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#47

Post by enaaem »

GuB-42 wrote: post #13

The argument that we can profit from the poor by giving them a small amount of money that is better than the nothing they usually get, and still be criticized because it is not enough reminds me of the ultimatum game. Here we have two players, the first player has a plan to win a a million dollars, but for the plan to work, the second player needs to cooperate, if he doesn't everything is lost. The plan is perfectly…

You need to adjust the ultimatum game to make itsimilar to the examples given in the article. Your choices are actually:

1. Do nothing. 2. Play the original ultimatum game.

The question now is: Is 1 more ethical than 2?

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#48

Post by bsenftner »

patmcc wrote: post #14
GuB-42 wrote: post #13

The argument that we can profit from the poor by giving them a small amount of money that is better than the nothing they usually get, and still be criticized because it is not enough reminds me of the ultimatum game. Here we have two players, the first player has a plan to win a a million dollars, but for the plan to work, the second player needs to cooperate, if he doesn't everything is lost. The plan is perfectly…

>>>So it show that we are not completely rational and selfish here. Does it? Accepting $1 might be a good strategy if this game only ever comes up once and no one can learn from it, but that's not the world we live in. If all the "second players" in the world don't accept anything below 30%, guess what, we end up much better off in the long run.

You omit the rational knowledge of knowing the other party will receive more than you, or nothing if you do not participate. The rational action is to hold out for a larger split, with the limit of that being you receive the majority.

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#49

Post by Vinnl »

donatj wrote: post #7

Reminds 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.

In that case it actively makes the situation worse for the recipient: by offering free Facebook (not internet) access, they're pre-emptively distorting the market, denying the recipients the benefits of better alternatives that no longer stand a chance.
Post reply on HN