Conversation

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

Lol! It's becoming a habit.

Replying to

and

Good. I don't think we spend enough time on the foundational stuff. We can't parse it very easily, so we tend to pass over it in silence.

12:44 PM · Sep 1, 2017Twitter Web Client