It seems like this is a problem when the argument is wrong or there’s no support for the claim, not a problem with the argument structure. Right? I’m not familiar with each of those orgs’ arguments in detail, and I assume you mean to make a point that doesn’t require that familiarity.
Pascal’s mugger is a mugger because they don’t provide any support for their claim, so they could be (and probably are) just making stuff up. I assume that’s the problem with the orgs and claims you’re labeling Pascal’s abusers?
If what they’re doing hurts people now but provides a noticeable chance of saving the world, and there’s no real downside to other world-saving efforts, then it seems like the validity comes down to either the particulars or your utilitarian vs virtue ethics preferences.
It seems like this is a problem when the argument is wrong or there’s no support for the claim, not a problem with the argument structure. Right? I’m not familiar with each of those orgs’ arguments in detail, and I assume you mean to make a point that doesn’t require that familiarity.
Pascal’s mugger is a mugger because they don’t provide any support for their claim, so they could be (and probably are) just making stuff up. I assume that’s the problem with the orgs and claims you’re labeling Pascal’s abusers?
If what they’re doing hurts people now but provides a noticeable chance of saving the world, and there’s no real downside to other world-saving efforts, then it seems like the validity comes down to either the particulars or your utilitarian vs virtue ethics preferences.
Right?