Timeline for A consequentialist ethical dilemma?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 24, 2021 at 1:04 | vote | accept | Futilitarian | ||
| Nov 22, 2021 at 16:55 | answer | added | Ted Wrigley | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 14:26 | history | edited | Futilitarian | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added qualifier.
|
| Nov 22, 2021 at 13:54 | history | edited | Futilitarian | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added qualifiers to paragraph 2.
|
| Nov 22, 2021 at 13:53 | comment | added | Futilitarian | @Conifold. News in Australia surfaced recently. Police recruited a lawyer to inform on her clients. It would likely have been very difficult to predict the odds of the news surfacing. At all stages however, many consequences of the story surfacing would have been easy to predict, such as the need for re-trials, the loss of cases, compensation payouts, loss of public trust, reprisals, and so on. There is nothing incoherent about such a scenario. That being said, it makes sense for me to temper the unrealistic clarity you identified with a couple of qualifiers. This has now been done. Cheers. | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 13:28 | comment | added | Conifold | Because both depend on reactions and sensibilities of multiple people, which both can be not only passively projected but also actively managed. If they can see public reaction and its effect on their reputation with such crystal clarity I do not see why they should not have the same clarity on what to do to frustrate, obfuscate or discredit its causes. Which is why I expect them to follow utilitarian rules based on very different assumptions. Plausible deniability and waiving bloody shirts are not there for nothing. | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 13:02 | comment | added | Futilitarian | @Conifold. Thanks. Your comment about utilitarianism makes sense. Is it not reasonable however for the odds of disclosure to be impossible to estimate, but for the consequences to be (relatively) easy to predict? I don't understand why this is incoherent. Can you explain any further? | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 11:45 | comment | added | Conifold | Rule utilitarianism: details of specific circumstances are impossible to know, and their consequences impossible to predict, so act according to rules with better consequences on average. And on average, "everything secret will be brought into the open, everything done in the dark will be brought to light". That is, accepting your factual premises. But... the odds of disclosure are "impossible to estimate", yet it "will cause public harm at least equivalent"? Some incoherent predictive powers that agency of yours has. And it must be uncharacteristically bad at PR and self-propaganda. | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 10:30 | history | edited | Futilitarian | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Minor grammar.
|
| Nov 22, 2021 at 10:18 | history | edited | Futilitarian | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Altered the odds of the action becoming public.
|
| Nov 22, 2021 at 9:47 | history | edited | Futilitarian | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
More specifics to paragraph 1.
|
| Nov 22, 2021 at 9:42 | history | asked | Futilitarian | CC BY-SA 4.0 |