Is it worth acting when you’re comparing a 0.051% chance of doing good to a 0.049% chance of doing harm? Maybe, but it’s far from a clean argument. Primum non nocere (first, do no harm) matters too.
I would like to see a utilitarian argument for why that is the case. To me it seems like you could completely change the best course of action by simply changing your definition of the default action to take.
I would like to see a utilitarian argument for why that is the case. To me it seems like you could completely change the best course of action by simply changing your definition of the default action to take.