>> The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it.
At first I was thinking it's ridiculous to consider someone as well part of the problem if they observe a problem and do nothing. But doing something could be as simple as calling the police.
> but since he's not directly saying it needs to go away he's going to catch hell for it
That's, unfortunately, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics[0] at play.
"The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular."
>> The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular.
That's well put and explains the furor over Bill Gates' charity work while other immensely rich folks get zero heat for essentially hoarding their wealth like Scrooge McDuck instead.
This is due to people (non-consciously or not-explicitly) holding or believing something like 'The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics'.
In a nutshell, it's often better to ignore a problem than attempt to improve it in any way less than perfect, at least in terms of other third parties' reactions.
> there's a disturbing tendency for people to throw more shade on the people, organizations, and technologies that get things almost perfect than they do on the ones that aren't even trying.
Also known as The Copenhagen interpretation of ethics, and once you know it, you see it everywhere.
> You can't accomplish anything in this life without being hated for it.
Yup. In case of accomplishing good for other people, that's sometimes called "the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics", per the article already linked elsewhere in this thread.
> "If we don't do it, someone else will." It can be used to justify any kind of unethical activities,
No, not really.
> Norwegian oil becomes friendly for the environment.
There is a difference between something being friendly for the environment and blindly doing changes without considering there global implication not being help full and maybe even harmful. The world is not black and white.
> magical thinking
I would call it considering the effects of you actions before acting. Instead of blindly acting based on ideology not matter if it's actually helpful or not for the end goal of the ideology.
> If I didn't steal your wallet, someone else would've done it,
Which is a good example of why you can't reason arbitrary bad things with the argument. Because most likely no on else would have stolen your wallet. There is a very big difference between creating arbitrary hypothetical situations and considering realistic very likely consequences of actions.
> Isn’t choosing not to interact when you were able to still a form of interaction?
It is. If you can't act, then it's not your responsibility, but if you can and choose not to, then it is.
In many countries, this is codified in the law: if you see someone drown or otherwise in lethal trouble, you're expected to do what you can to save them. You can't choose not to interact in order to avoid responsibility; if you're aware of the situation and in a position to act, you carry some responsibility.
> Firstly, you can't predict the future so really you're working off your biases
Obviously. That is the human condition.
Do you not take actions in normal life because you don't have full knowledge of everything? Don't order breakfast because you don't know which menu item is for sure going to be the best.
> How do you stop this shit? Deontological ethics. Don't murder, because murder is wrong. Don't steal, because stealing is wrong. Damn the consequences, stick to simple principles such as these.
Simple rules like: dont hoard your money but find a worthy cause for it?
> "I doubt anyone would say you should ignore reports of criminal activity just because some other crime goes unreported. So I think the same applies to these ethical restrictions."
Yeah, thinking you have to be able to catch/notice everything before you should try to catch/notice anything in the domain of ethics... is a more stark and literal case of making perfection an enemy of the good possible?
Try the thinking outside of the ethical/legal domains altogether... don't bother trying to learn to play an instrument, there is no way you can get every note right.
This is a rationalization for resignation, not sound practical reasoning.
Me: "Near as I can tell, you, me and Markhor are all in the same moral boat..."
Coldtea: "Only, one of us [the employer] has used the $x an hour work of that woman up to that point..."
If you want to argue that coldtea isn't making a moral argument as to why he isn't responsible, be my guest. I don't think my interpretation is unreasonable.
It seems quite reasonable to believe that our responsibility towards the other may increase if 1/ we somehow contributed to their misfortune, 2/ if we somehow benefit from it, or 3/ if we benefit from them in any way at all.
(2) and (3) are exactly what the author is calling the Copenhagen Interpretation. I thought this wasn't a thing?
> Every citizen of a self respecting nation has a personal responsibility to fight wrongs, and be sensible and rational in how he treats others.
I think everybody already does so. But right and wrong are very subjective things and this fighting the wrongs is contributing a lot to the global mess.
> Legally perhaps, but morally, I've never gotten why so many people think that the physical act of pulling or not pulling makes so much difference.
As Henry David Thoreau said:
It is not man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.
It's not your duty to fix the world. It's not even your duty to optimize the outcomes of the world as best as you could. The world is not in your hands. There was one trolly problem on this page where everything was blurred, but in the real world you don't remotely get clean problem statements at all, let alone clean outcomes. Not only are the outcomes profoundly unknowable, but the world is full of other people pulling their own levers!
To illustrate it, maybe he should have added one trolley problem where you were given the classic #1 description, but regardless of what you picked, the opposite happened. Or you got a random pick from one of the other people on the site. Or one where a third, entirely unexpected thing happened.
> I, personally, could not sit idly by and watch, or record, anyone suffering without attempting to assist.
We should be careful with this kind of statements. I remember that in Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman describes an experiment which shows that most people don't actually take action when the responsibility is shared among other people. Of course most people think they would.
>The thing is, you get no money by looking out for others.
And our definitions of harm can greatly differ, to the point where two groups honestly believe the other group is doing harm. While some of these cases can be resolved with more knowledge, some of them depend upon ethical guidelines that are entirely subjective.
>the world is broken and requires fixing, and the world should be fixed before the individual is fixed
This is just fundamentally wrong. The correct level of analysis to fix the world is the individual. If individuals aren't responsible for their actions and doing their best in life then the world will never be fixed. By saying that the world needs to be fixed before individuals you're giving people an excuse to not try their best.
At first I was thinking it's ridiculous to consider someone as well part of the problem if they observe a problem and do nothing. But doing something could be as simple as calling the police.
reply