By the way, while we are adding direct emotional weight to this example, the real villain here is Omega.
I do not concur.
In all honesty, the Young Earth Creationist cannot be blamed for sending untold numbers to their death because of a bad belief.
Yes he can be blamed, and I do. Humans have learned to harness false belief in the face of overwhelming evidence and wield it as a weapon far more effectively than teeth, claws and even clubs. While I once excused destructive behavior based on ‘sincere belief that they were doing the right thing’ I no longer do so.
The bad belief has nothing to do with the asteroid
No human can be blamed for the asteroid. They can be blamed for sending untold numbers to their death. The guy chose between ‘save millions of people’ or ‘signal in group status by advocating nonsense’ and chose the latter. I really don’t care whether he is a well meaning innocent with bad belief in face of evidence or a machivellian agent on a halucinogenic trip.
The bad belief has nothing to do with the asteroid and any moral link between the two should be placed on Omega.
I have no particular inclination to do that. I’ve been given no information about either Omega’s incentives or his abilities in this situation. All I know is that he has arrived and offered to save millions of people in a somewhat bizarre manner. I’d prefer he saved everyone but better some be saved than the entire planet be obliterated.
Anything that has the ability to save untold billions and will only do so if two particular individuals figure out how old the earth is evil. Or, at the very least, does not have the best interests of humanity in mind.
To belabor the point, if Omega held his hands behind his back and asked you and me to guess at whether the number of fingers he is holding up is odd or even and, if and only if we were correct, he would save lives it would be the OP’s example with certainty dropped to 0. Would we be held to blame if we failed? Increasing our certainty does not increase our moral responsibility.
(Note) I think the formatting in your post may be off. The third quote looks like it may have too much included.
Anything that has the ability to save untold billions and will only do so if two particular individuals figure out how old the earth is evil. Or, at the very least, does not have the best interests of humanity in mind.
Since I’d say that evil is just having goals which are fundamentally incompatible with mine (or whoever is considering this), I don’t think there’s necessarily a difference between those two statements.
I do not concur.
Yes he can be blamed, and I do. Humans have learned to harness false belief in the face of overwhelming evidence and wield it as a weapon far more effectively than teeth, claws and even clubs. While I once excused destructive behavior based on ‘sincere belief that they were doing the right thing’ I no longer do so.
I have no particular inclination to do that. I’ve been given no information about either Omega’s incentives or his abilities in this situation. All I know is that he has arrived and offered to save millions of people in a somewhat bizarre manner. I’d prefer he saved everyone but better some be saved than the entire planet be obliterated.
Anything that has the ability to save untold billions and will only do so if two particular individuals figure out how old the earth is evil. Or, at the very least, does not have the best interests of humanity in mind.
To belabor the point, if Omega held his hands behind his back and asked you and me to guess at whether the number of fingers he is holding up is odd or even and, if and only if we were correct, he would save lives it would be the OP’s example with certainty dropped to 0. Would we be held to blame if we failed? Increasing our certainty does not increase our moral responsibility.
(Note) I think the formatting in your post may be off. The third quote looks like it may have too much included.
Since I’d say that evil is just having goals which are fundamentally incompatible with mine (or whoever is considering this), I don’t think there’s necessarily a difference between those two statements.