A question in the form of an analogy (this is almost certainly not phrased in its strongest form, hopefully it is clear enough and assistance with phrasing and responses to the question are both appreciated):
Lay a sledgehammer on a perfectly stable (assume it will not rot/rust/etc. for the purpose of this thought experiment) table. At rest on the table, some amount of force downward is being applied by the sledge. Call this unit of energy applied daily X.
Alternatively, there exists some velocity and mass combination at which a single swing of the sledgehammer will break the table. Call the minimum unit of energy required to accomplish this feat Y.
There exists many multiples of X that exceed the value of Y. But simultaneously there exists no multiple of X that equals the results of Y. That is, you can leave the sledge on the table for a month, a year, a century, a millennium, even a Graham’s number of years and the table doesn’t break. But one application of >\= Y energy in a single unit, does break the table. A million times X is clearly more energy than Y, but it doesn’t break the table, and Y does.
Therefore there exists some threshold below which X is an irrelevant number with respect to Y. It is a relevant number in many other ways, but not in respect to achieving the outcome of a broken table, which requires values equal to or greater than Y.
Does such a moral threshold exist?
Because I think some people assuming yes and others assuming no, but both being unable to conceive of the alternative position is happening here. And this appears to me to be true regardless of which school of ethics they otherwise subscribe to.
A question in the form of an analogy (this is almost certainly not phrased in its strongest form, hopefully it is clear enough and assistance with phrasing and responses to the question are both appreciated):
Lay a sledgehammer on a perfectly stable (assume it will not rot/rust/etc. for the purpose of this thought experiment) table. At rest on the table, some amount of force downward is being applied by the sledge. Call this unit of energy applied daily X.
Alternatively, there exists some velocity and mass combination at which a single swing of the sledgehammer will break the table. Call the minimum unit of energy required to accomplish this feat Y.
There exists many multiples of X that exceed the value of Y. But simultaneously there exists no multiple of X that equals the results of Y. That is, you can leave the sledge on the table for a month, a year, a century, a millennium, even a Graham’s number of years and the table doesn’t break. But one application of >\= Y energy in a single unit, does break the table. A million times X is clearly more energy than Y, but it doesn’t break the table, and Y does.
Therefore there exists some threshold below which X is an irrelevant number with respect to Y. It is a relevant number in many other ways, but not in respect to achieving the outcome of a broken table, which requires values equal to or greater than Y.
Does such a moral threshold exist?
Because I think some people assuming yes and others assuming no, but both being unable to conceive of the alternative position is happening here. And this appears to me to be true regardless of which school of ethics they otherwise subscribe to.