The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
blog.jaibot.com
The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
1–10 of 69 posts
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#2Once you see this pattern once, you see it almost everywhere. This is one of the most important essays of the past decade.
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#3Something the article misses is that when you become aware of an issue, you do become responsible. Now, we can't act on every problem so inaction has to be on the table. But:
> Mr. Thornley improved on the status quo – but in the process he interacted the problem and was thus caught up in it.
No. The proper response to the wage gap[1] is not to pay women slightly more but still less than the equivalently-qualified man, it's to offer equal pay. That's the base case of not doing anything.
[1] assume for the same of argument it exists and is for sexist reasons. I'm not interested in litigating either side of the issue here.
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#4What this article really misses is that if you exploit someone at slight better conditions than they were previously being exploited, you are still exploiting them, and morally responsible for that.
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#5This 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 excuse to not execute the kinds of large, systemic shifts that a complete solution necessarily entails. These things are so repulsive to the general public because regular people, on some level, understand that everyone has an unconditional right to the safety and dignity that homelessness and living without water or medicine is incompatible with.
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#6This 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…
FYI - If you read the comment section of the article, there are a number of interesting side discussions about this exact thing, along with various arguments on both sides .
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#7Reminds 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.
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#8This 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…
> 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 excuse to not execute the kinds of large, systemic shifts that a complete solution necessarily entails
Is there any evidence this is the case, or is this just a thought experiment?
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#9Once you see this pattern once, you see it almost everywhere. This is one of the most important essays of the past decade.
I liked it too. It's the argument from Australian philosopher of ethics Peter Singer's The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty (2009).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_You_Can_Save
Singer started a charity of the same name, designed to make your charity dollar do the most good. The site also has info on the best charities to give to.
https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/
He followed that book with The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically (2015)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Good_You_Can_Do
Slightly off-topic: I'm (genuinely) curious what other essays you had in mind when you wrote that second sentence! I'd like to read them.
Re: The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015)
#10This 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.