Conversation

Replying to

and

Yes. But it's common wisdom that this is not the case, so a lot of odd ideas about ethics sneak into arguments about the nature of good.

Replying to

and

I think it mostly arises from confusion over scale. E.g. there are things a state should never do, that an individual could. & vice-versa.

Replying to

and

The concept of the "greater good" frequently requires a phenomenal amount of information to get right, doesn't it?

Replying to

and

That's exactly what I mean, though. There are cases where the greater good is the only valid consideration, and cases where it's not needed.

Replying to

and

As you say, scale is probably the key issue.

Replying to

and

That's the problem, though. Taking that to its logical extreme places you in personally indefensible situations. That's why I said hellhole.

Replying to

and

The obliteration of many of your personal rights is often the price you'd pay for the greater good. And not just *your* personal rights.

Replying to

and

The obliteration of other people's personal rights might well be too high a price to pay, even if it achieves something phenomenal, though.

Replying to

and

After all, you're then in a position where their improved position has only been achieved through tyranny. What have you created?

Replying to

and

Well, you just summed up 2.5 millennia of philosophical hand-wringing. It's one of the foundational problems of ethics.

Replying to

and

The problem has nonobvious nuances. For example, if you do something for the Greater Good that injures me, and I fight you and prevent it...

12:38 PM · Sep 1, 2017Twitter Web Client

Replying to

and

There is a good chance that we are both acting ethically, and that in this respect the problem *has no resolution*.

Replying to

and

I guess if all of the possible ethical resolutions have been exhausted, some unethical resolution will be inevitable 🤔

Show replies