Zack didn’t claim that so much good is done by talking to Metz that even if Metz lies we would come out ahead comparatively. He said that he doesn’t care about the harm caused by Metz.
Where you are getting the position that Davis doesn’t care about harm caused by Metz? I don’t see this. In this thread, Davis said:
I worry that my other comment that you quote, read in isolation, might have left you or other readers with the impression that my goal is to protect “the community”’s reputation. To clarify, I don’t really care about that.
That is a normal position held by billions of people on the planet who also don’t really care about protecting the reputation of this community. No doubt there are many communities whose reputation you don’t care about protecting, just this one community whose reputation you do care about protecting. That’s fine by me, but you’re not defending universal human values here, you’re defending your idiosyncratic values, so leave space for others with different values.
I don’t really care about protecting the reputation of this community. It’s not a terminal value of mine. I don’t have a vow or deontology committing me to it. I have some virtue-of-loyalty, but to people, not communities. I don’t expect this community to protect my reputation, so there is no acausal trade. Instrumentally I expect the future to go best if all communities have accurate reputations. That is not the same as “protecting” a reputation.
That is a normal position held by billions of people on the planet who also don’t really care about protecting the reputation of this community.
You only need to care about hurting the community if you are hurting the community. Billions of people on this planet (why do you exclude Martians?) don’t harm the reputation of this community, so they don’t need to care. Zack, by talking to Metz, does harm it and therefore is obliged to care.
Caring about how your own actions hurt others is not an optional choice.
Where you are getting the position that Davis doesn’t care about harm caused by Metz?
The above is exactly not caring about the harm caused by Metz (or rather, by him enabling Metz).
Zack didn’t claim that so much good is done by talking to Metz that even if Metz lies we would come out ahead comparatively. He said that he doesn’t care about the harm caused by Metz.
Where you are getting the position that Davis doesn’t care about harm caused by Metz? I don’t see this. In this thread, Davis said:
That is a normal position held by billions of people on the planet who also don’t really care about protecting the reputation of this community. No doubt there are many communities whose reputation you don’t care about protecting, just this one community whose reputation you do care about protecting. That’s fine by me, but you’re not defending universal human values here, you’re defending your idiosyncratic values, so leave space for others with different values.
I don’t really care about protecting the reputation of this community. It’s not a terminal value of mine. I don’t have a vow or deontology committing me to it. I have some virtue-of-loyalty, but to people, not communities. I don’t expect this community to protect my reputation, so there is no acausal trade. Instrumentally I expect the future to go best if all communities have accurate reputations. That is not the same as “protecting” a reputation.
You only need to care about hurting the community if you are hurting the community. Billions of people on this planet (why do you exclude Martians?) don’t harm the reputation of this community, so they don’t need to care. Zack, by talking to Metz, does harm it and therefore is obliged to care.
Caring about how your own actions hurt others is not an optional choice.
The above is exactly not caring about the harm caused by Metz (or rather, by him enabling Metz).