the trolley problem meets climate change.

[K. A. Pital]

The only way this would work really is if it wasn't as abstract (can't think of a better word) as climate change. Say those 1 million people were a breakaway population of scientists, biologists and ex-military that took over a Pacific island and are developing a bio-weapon that can kill billions. In a case like that, nuking the island flat would probably be a no-brainer.

So have countries nuked their biolabs yet? No. Which means there's no such thing as a 'no-brainer' and even the most dangerous situations have more than one outcome.

[Borgholio]

So have countries nuked their biolabs yet? No. Which means there's no such thing as a 'no-brainer' and even the most dangerous situations have more than one outcome.

Apologies, perhaps I should have clarified. These people are not doing it as a deterrent, they are planning to release the stuff as soon as it's completed in a mass terror attack.

[K. A. Pital]

Even then multiple outcomes are possible.

[Formless]

As an aside to everyone. Stop being fucking squeamish. There is a reason ethical dilemmas are presented, and it is not to give you an excuse to try to wiggle your way out of the scenario. Rather, to force you to confront a difficult question. So confront it, rather than attempting to dodge it.

The answer is Yes. You kill those million people. Provided that another million will not compensate for their cumulative action.

If I see a false dillema, I'm going to goddamn call it a fallacy. Being a utilitarian doesn't require you to be a flaming retard, nor is it an excuse to start a dick measuring contest. Take your unwarranted insults, and stuff them up your nose. Everyone knows the utilitarian logic, that doesn't mean it is the only valid (utilitarian) argument one can make.

Frankly, the fact that most thought experiments are so contrived to eliminate alternative choices makes them far less useful at developing moral insight than people make them out to be. Ethics is partially a form of problem solving, which means that it is necessary to develop problem solving skills. Like Creativity. The best philosophers do not arbitrarily sabotage their own mental tool-sets this way.

I also contest that utilitarianism is worse than deontology at dealing with interpersonal issues. If anything, rule based ethics it just make you seem like an inflexible asshole to your friends, family, coworkers, etc.. Or am I the only one here who knows what the word "interpersonal" means?

[Alyrium Denryle]

If I see a false dillema, I'm going to goddamn call it a fallacy.

In a constructed scenario, it is not a false dilemma. A false dilemma only exists in a real world scenario. Think of them like a controlled thought experiment that force you to confront a very specific ethical principle.

Frankly, the fact that most thought experiments are so contrived to eliminate alternative choices makes them far less useful at developing moral insight than people make them out to be. Ethics is partially a form of problem solving, which means that it is necessary to develop problem solving skills. Like Creativity. The best philosophers do not arbitrarily sabotage their own mental tool-sets this way.

It is not about actually solving the problem. It is about challenging your own preconceptions. Seeing what your limits are, seeing precisely where the logic of a given ethical system breaks.

I also contest that utilitarianism is worse than deontology at dealing with interpersonal issues. If anything, rule based ethics it just make you seem like an inflexible asshole to your friends, family, coworkers, etc.. Or am I the only one here who knows what the word "interpersonal" means?

It depends on the form of deontology. Kant can be boiled down to one axion. Always treat others as an end unto themselves, and never solely as a means unto your own ends. In other words, dont use]/i] people. This works pretty well over a large portion of your day to day interactions, and if you have a doctor, you want him or her to be a committed deontologist rather than a utilitarian. A triage nurse on the other hand is better to have be a committed utilitarian.

This is because actual ethical decision making is too complex and encompasses too many variables to be utilized in the field. One can think of any one ethical system as being like a form of Ethical Dimensionality Reduction. Like PCA. With each orthogonal axis being a different ethical system and load scores being some proportion of each situation that loads on a different ethical system (so, say, in variable set, say, trolley car scenarios and real life analogues, 80% of your decision ought be determined by variation in a utilitarian calculus).

[madd0ct0r]

Worth the necro
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... al-warming

[Adam Reynolds]

Link fixed

[Adam Reynolds]

Having now read it, I wish I could say I'm surprised. It is the fundamental problem with incentives and poorly regulated capitalism. It's not much different than the dozens of investment firms that could mathematically prove that Bernie Madoff was a fraud. None of them did anything other than avoid giving him money. With the exception of slightly insane analyst Harry Markopolos, who at one point apparently believed that Madoff would kill him and that the SEC would send a SWAT team to destroy his records of their incompetence. In the latter case he kept a loaded shotgun in the event that he would have to shoot it out with them.

Though I am somewhat surprised just how much data they gathered. Though it makes sense as a means to determine where they could find new Arctic reserves. That would have been interesting if the company had revealed what they knew. It would have essentially meant an end to the company. Given that this is the same company behind the Exxon Valdez, I wouldn't have considered anything positive very likely.

[Simon_Jester]

As much to the point, the critical decisions were made in the same era as the Exxon Valdez sinking (the '80s when Exxon was finding out and planning on the basis of global warming).

An Exxon executive stepping into power in 2005 or so... well, that would be an interesting set of briefing documents to read. "We knew what when?"

[jwl]

The article seems rather exaggerated though. While climate-change denialism may have altered policy to some extent, it's mostly just people who are aware of the risks of global warming and decided to use fossil fuels anyway because they're cheaper.

[Simon_Jester]

Except that people who know the risks and choose to keep using fossil fuels would still support preparing for the risks.

It's like, if I'm playing with matches in a wooden house, knowing the risk of fire, I'll still be in favor of someone else paying for a fire extinguisher.

If I'm a "house-on-fire denialist," only then will I oppose the fire extinguisher as part of a secret conspiracy by alarmists who want to pretend houses can catch on fire in a nebulous evil scheme to take my money.

In the US, at least, the outright denial of climate change by numerous prominent politicians has caused a lot of harm, because it means our ability to predict, understand, and respond to climate change is greatly reduced. Moreover, it's undermining our ability to educate the next generation about climate change, which in turn prevents them from making an informed decision about a problem that affects them more than it affects us.

[Adam Reynolds]

In the US, at least, the outright denial of climate change by numerous prominent politicians has caused a lot of harm, because it means our ability to predict, understand, and respond to climate change is greatly reduced. Moreover, it's undermining our ability to educate the next generation about climate change, which in turn prevents them from making an informed decision about a problem that affects them more than it affects us.

It is exactly the same as the lack of concern over smoking, for the same reasons. There was just enough doubt in the science to cause people to ignore it. Part of the problem with American politicians is that they are lawyers. The natural response of any lawyer when they find evidence that does not support their position is to object. Regardless of whether or not they know that it is valid. That is exactly the mindset that Exxon and other were able to exploit.

There was an excellent point made in the movie A Civil Action about this issue. Robert Duvall's character at one point tells his law students that if they fall asleep at the table, the first thing they should say when they wake up is "Objection." Of course he does that at one point in the film.

The second underlying problem is the media. Because they have this idea that it is reasonable to give equal time to an issue, they always bring in an anti-global warming advocate to back up the global warming advocate. Bill Nye, who for some reason often ends up appearing as said science expert has complained about this repeatedly.