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

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#61

Post by savanaly »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #53

In times of war it becomes very difficult to find basic goods such as food items, or hygiene supplies. Some people will get out of their way to collect such goods and make them available to the general population. Clearly, those goods must be sold at a very high markup, to cover not only the expense of buying them but also the personal risk of the merchant to procure and sell them. Clearly it's more beneficial for th…

I think the disagreement about whether black markets are real and "price gouging" is a helpful way to frame what happens boils down to ordinary folks (excusably) rounding off high supply and demand inelasticity to 100% and folks that believe they have a more nuanced view (you and I) saying well it's not quite 100%.

If the demand and supply elasticities are really totally inelastic there's nothing to be gained from allowing market activity. No new supplies will become available due to a high price and no one will cut back on their consumption either. You'll just be allowing folks to get rinsed financially at their lowest point which of course sucks.

If either elasticity isn't perfectly inelastic then there's scope for increased efficiency through market activity, at the cost of some or lots of folks getting rinsed financially. That's the tradeoff and usually I'm for allowing the rinsing and making up the inequity on the backend in order to squeeze every last bit of efficiency out in an emergency. But I'm not die-hard committed to the idea and recognize the tradeoff.

The last point to mention is budget constraints. If Bill Gates is around and has 1000x more money than I have he really can inefficiently hoard resources even if he's not perfectly inelastic in his demand. This is a trickier situation to justify black markets but I think it's so vivid and awful that folks' minds jump right to this situation when not all emergencies are like this.

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#62

Post by xboxnolifes »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #55
xboxnolifes wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In theory, the first player only needs to split $999999/$1. $1 is better than nothing for the second player, so if he was perfectly selfish and rational, he would accept the offer. An important point is that this is only true if there can only be one offer and no chance of re-negotiation. Player 2 knows that their cooperation has value, and has negotiating power because of it.

The point is that the seond player has negotiation power whether they get a chance to make a counter-offer, or not. The first player must try to guess what the second player will consider a fair split, otherwise they (the first player) get nothing. In that sense the rational thing is to offer half the money, which is really the fairest possible split. Anything less risks the second player flipping the bird and watchi…

That explains why player 1 should not offer only $1, but it doesn't explain why player 2 would not take $1 if offered. If there is no chance of renegotiation, and you already got an offer of free money, it is irrational to not take the money. The only reason player 2 would do so is if: (1) this is a regularly occuring event and they want to help future player 2s, or (2) they like the emotional response of spiting player 1.

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#63

Post by burrows »

zosima wrote: post #59
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #53

In times of war it becomes very difficult to find basic goods such as food items, or hygiene supplies. Some people will get out of their way to collect such goods and make them available to the general population. Clearly, those goods must be sold at a very high markup, to cover not only the expense of buying them but also the personal risk of the merchant to procure and sell them. Clearly it's more beneficial for th…

One reason, is that the lack of necessities in times of crisis is often due to hoarding. And these people selling at inflated prices are, perhaps, the worst hoarders. Second, they may have goods that can mean the difference between life and death. And they choose to use that situation for turning a huge profit. There isn't really anything commendable in that.

> One reason, is that the lack of necessities in times of crisis is often due to hoarding.

Is “hoarding” just a synonym for “owning”?

> Second, they may have goods that can mean the difference between life and death. And they choose to use that situation for turning a huge profit. There isn't really anything commendable in that.

Sounds like, “Do what zosima says with your stuff, otherwise you’re BAD!”

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#64

Post by burrows »

xg15 wrote: post #51

> In 2010, New York randomly chose homeless applicants to participate in its Homebase program, and tracked those who were not allowed into the program as a control group. The program was helping as many people as it could, the only change was explicitly labeling a number of people it wasn’t helping as a “control group”. You could also interpret this in a different way: The experiment did some good, but at the same ti…

> I think this is the difference in general this article glosses over. It's not about doing a little good vs doing a lot of good, it's about not wanting to do more than a certain amount of good, even if you could.

What is the word “wanting” naming? Can you tell me how to observe this phenomena with one of my senses?

If not, then in what way is that sentence meaningful?

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#65

Post by xg15 »

burrows wrote: post #64
xg15 wrote: post #51

> In 2010, New York randomly chose homeless applicants to participate in its Homebase program, and tracked those who were not allowed into the program as a control group. The program was helping as many people as it could, the only change was explicitly labeling a number of people it wasn’t helping as a “control group”. You could also interpret this in a different way: The experiment did some good, but at the same ti…

> I think this is the difference in general this article glosses over. It's not about doing a little good vs doing a lot of good, it's about not wanting to do more than a certain amount of good, even if you could. What is the word “wanting” naming? Can you tell me how to observe this phenomena with one of my senses? If not, then in what way is that sentence meaningful?

There are many things in this world which you can't observe with your senses but which nevertheless exist. However in the current case, the people who took issue with the city council's project were apparently perfectly able to spot the difference with their senses, so if you can't then I'm sorry for you.

But sorry, "wanting" doesn't really cut it. I don't think many people object if you donate $50 even though you could technically donate $100 or if you don't allocate your complete spare time to community service. (Or at least I hope no one does). But one reason why that's not an issue is because someone else could pitch in do the work instead.

What I meant were cases where you wouldn't want anyone to help because if the situation inproved beyond a certain level this would actually results in a worse situation for you. So "want" in this context would be about conflicting goals.

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#66

Post by burrows »

xg15 wrote: post #65
burrows wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think this is the difference in general this article glosses over. It's not about doing a little good vs doing a lot of good, it's about not wanting to do more than a certain amount of good, even if you could. What is the word “wanting” naming? Can you tell me how to observe this phenomena with one of my senses? If not, then in what way is that sentence meaningful?

There are many things in this world which you can't observe with your senses but which nevertheless exist. However in the current case, the people who took issue with the city council's project were apparently perfectly able to spot the difference with their senses, so if you can't then I'm sorry for you. But sorry, "wanting" doesn't really cut it. I don't think many people object if you donate $50 even though you co…

> There are many things in this world which you can't observe with your senses but which nevertheless exist.

Such as?

> So "want" in this context would be about conflicting goals.

Do tell, how can I observe a goal with my senses?

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#67

Post by xg15 »

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…

Your proposed corrections actually turn the claim on its head. If you want to argue against it, then you should actually argue and not hide behind semantics.

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#68

Post by Doxin »

burrows wrote: post #63
zosima wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One reason, is that the lack of necessities in times of crisis is often due to hoarding. And these people selling at inflated prices are, perhaps, the worst hoarders. Second, they may have goods that can mean the difference between life and death. And they choose to use that situation for turning a huge profit. There isn't really anything commendable in that.

> One reason, is that the lack of necessities in times of crisis is often due to hoarding. Is “hoarding” just a synonym for “owning”? > Second, they may have goods that can mean the difference between life and death. And they choose to use that situation for turning a huge profit. There isn't really anything commendable in that. Sounds like, “Do what zosima says with your stuff, otherwise you’re BAD!”

> Is “hoarding” just a synonym for “owning”?

hoarding is owning way more than you need to the detriment of other people.

> Sounds like, “Do what zosima says with your stuff, otherwise you’re BAD!”

Generally using life-or-death situations to run a huge profit is at best considered impolite. Zosima is not alone in thinking so.

Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)

#69

Post by burrows »

Doxin wrote: post #68
burrows wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One reason, is that the lack of necessities in times of crisis is often due to hoarding. Is “hoarding” just a synonym for “owning”? > Second, they may have goods that can mean the difference between life and death. And they choose to use that situation for turning a huge profit. There isn't really anything commendable in that. Sounds like, “Do what zosima says with your stuff, otherwise you’re BAD!”

> Is “hoarding” just a synonym for “owning”? hoarding is owning way more than you need to the detriment of other people. > Sounds like, “Do what zosima says with your stuff, otherwise you’re BAD!” Generally using life-or-death situations to run a huge profit is at best considered impolite. Zosima is not alone in thinking so.

> hoarding is owning way more than you need to the detriment of other people.

So hoarding is owning plus the opinion of a Good Person such as Doxina that the owning is BAD because of its size. What if another Good Person thinks the owning is not excessive, then is it both hoarding and not hoarding? Maybe Schrodinger knows.

> Generally using life-or-death situations to run a huge profit is at best considered impolite. Zosima is not alone in thinking so.

“Do what Zosima and Doxin and the other Good People say with your stuff, otherwise you’re BAD!”

Post reply on HN