|
|
|
|
|
|
by csallen
7 days ago
|
|
|
> then Company C shows up and starts finding success doing 100 harm to Area X, so Company A changes it's moral stance to "unless we do 99 harm to Area X ..." I mean yes this is technically possible. But I think in many cases, especially "winner-take-all" markets like online search engines, social networks, etc., you don't get this large number of repeated threats. Fending off a competitor or two might be enough. And just as it's possible for there to be some advantage that opens from doing 99 harm to Area X, it's also possible that it never happens. But also, let's pretend the hypothetical you say _did_ happen? What should occur? Should the company just NOT do 99 harm to Area X and instead allow 100? If so, why? Unless you break the hypothetical by adding some alternative option C, as much as we don't like the preventative-99 option, it's still better than the allowing-100 option. |
|
|
That is kind of the point, isn't it? That my hypothetical scenario isn't realistic.
Let's imagine two worlds. A world where individuals refuse the false dichotomy and search for option C. And the world where someone accepts the false dichotomy and justifies evil.
I would argue that anyone that advocates for the justification of evil is actually using motivated reasoning. It breaks my original premise "Company A founds itself on doing 0 harm to Area X". Clearly they didn't and their embracing of evil shows that their principles mean nothing.
As a moral test, ask yourself: If I said "you must kill 99 people otherwise I will kill 100", would you feel morally justified to kill those 99 people? If your answer is "yes", then you are manipulable by those who want you to commit evil on their behalf. They don't have to commit any murders, just convince you that you have no other choice.