I have to be honest, this argument doesn't make much sense to me. First it's arguing that the expected unhappiness of a wet child is better than ten elephants dying. This, I understand. But then it moves onto the claim that altruism is ineffective if one isn't Jewish and acting according to G-d's will. But that doesn't work for me, because I have no matrilineal Jewish ancestors, so I can't be Jewish.
So, with respect, I will continue donating to Helen Keller International's Vitamin A Supplementation programs. Their grant from the U.S. government recently got cancelled, so they need whatever they can get.
That sounds like a great cause! It isn't making the argument about the child... I criticize the entire process of thought experiments as a possible infohazard.
Oh! Thank you, that makes much more sense. I agree, whenever someone has to make up an unreal thought experiment to justify their position, (as some racist recently did with me in a debate about whether it could be ethical to make a moral judgement about someone purely based on their racial background), I am mostly moved to dismiss it out of hand.
It's pretty easy to make up a thought experiment that validates any perspective, which is why I think that for fallible non-geniuses, consequentialism needs to be paired with deontological ethical restrictions about many actions. You should only even consider breaking the restrictions when you have deeply thought about it beforehand and performed a sincere cost benefit analysis.
Thanks Forrest. And I'm really proud that I know what Consequentialism and Deontology are. As I mentioned in the footnotes, I've been a Consequentialist for less than 3 months!
“What I would say—very strongly—is that when people try to be moral without G-d, they often end up endorsing things like infanticide and euthanasia, thinking they know best.” 🎯
Philanthropy sounds amazing. In practice, especially when donating somewhere far from where you live, what seems helpful might be hurting.
Microcredit was an idea about helping the poorest of the poor. It sounded amazing. But it ended up doing more harm than good.
The עניי עירך concept makes a lot of sense, even for that one reason alone- that we can better help those whose lives we understand better. Also every time money changes hands you lose value. So sending money far away in another currency might just bring less actual value to the charity than donating close to home, literally and figuratively.
You opened a can of worms for me and my past work in ICU nursing. I actually introduced the concept of deciding not to aggressively treat (with the treatment’s inherent infliction of pain) when it becomes clear that the patient is dying. There is a difference between allowing the patient to die without being tortured and actually killing them. I think that the public (and non medically trained family members) hasn’t much of an idea what “do everything “ entails. (Breaking the ribs of an elderly person while resuscitating them……. That’s just one of the scenarios that I have participated in. There are many others equally horrifying). So should we always “do everything”?
I have to be honest, this argument doesn't make much sense to me. First it's arguing that the expected unhappiness of a wet child is better than ten elephants dying. This, I understand. But then it moves onto the claim that altruism is ineffective if one isn't Jewish and acting according to G-d's will. But that doesn't work for me, because I have no matrilineal Jewish ancestors, so I can't be Jewish.
So, with respect, I will continue donating to Helen Keller International's Vitamin A Supplementation programs. Their grant from the U.S. government recently got cancelled, so they need whatever they can get.
That sounds like a great cause! It isn't making the argument about the child... I criticize the entire process of thought experiments as a possible infohazard.
Oh! Thank you, that makes much more sense. I agree, whenever someone has to make up an unreal thought experiment to justify their position, (as some racist recently did with me in a debate about whether it could be ethical to make a moral judgement about someone purely based on their racial background), I am mostly moved to dismiss it out of hand.
It's pretty easy to make up a thought experiment that validates any perspective, which is why I think that for fallible non-geniuses, consequentialism needs to be paired with deontological ethical restrictions about many actions. You should only even consider breaking the restrictions when you have deeply thought about it beforehand and performed a sincere cost benefit analysis.
Thank you for explaining.
Thanks Forrest. And I'm really proud that I know what Consequentialism and Deontology are. As I mentioned in the footnotes, I've been a Consequentialist for less than 3 months!
That's the only reason I used the word without explaining it :)
“What I would say—very strongly—is that when people try to be moral without G-d, they often end up endorsing things like infanticide and euthanasia, thinking they know best.” 🎯
I always love asking Rebbetzin Fastag for her take+
Sounds like a wise woman.
Philanthropy sounds amazing. In practice, especially when donating somewhere far from where you live, what seems helpful might be hurting.
Microcredit was an idea about helping the poorest of the poor. It sounded amazing. But it ended up doing more harm than good.
The עניי עירך concept makes a lot of sense, even for that one reason alone- that we can better help those whose lives we understand better. Also every time money changes hands you lose value. So sending money far away in another currency might just bring less actual value to the charity than donating close to home, literally and figuratively.
Microcredit
https://open.substack.com/pub/logicandmorality/p/microcredit?r=2z8wkz&utm_medium=ios
Thanks!
You opened a can of worms for me and my past work in ICU nursing. I actually introduced the concept of deciding not to aggressively treat (with the treatment’s inherent infliction of pain) when it becomes clear that the patient is dying. There is a difference between allowing the patient to die without being tortured and actually killing them. I think that the public (and non medically trained family members) hasn’t much of an idea what “do everything “ entails. (Breaking the ribs of an elderly person while resuscitating them……. That’s just one of the scenarios that I have participated in. There are many others equally horrifying). So should we always “do everything”?