This made me think of a novel to me moral principle: when choosing among goods, the best is the one the greatest number of people oppose (modulo Bayesian updates on why they oppose it).
I’m new here so take this with a grain of salt, but I think your stance needs justification. I don’t think the number of people with a particular opinion has any bearing on the correctness of any choice. Opinion is easily swayed on large scales. This has been pretty obvious in the open for a decade or so now.
Jefferson wanted public education as an inoculation against people being easily swayed. It is necessary for voters to understand the context of their votes for a healthy democracy. The US does not have that now. Education is the first thing to be attacked leading to dictatorships. That is where the US is currently headed. (Disagree if you want, I hope I am wrong.)
I think the “goodness” is only available with the outcome. If you mean well but don’t think about ramifications, you can do atrocities in your ignorance. I think it is appropriate to take action with educated intent rather than stabbing in the dark with polls and feelings. Get real data.
Figure out what will happen for each action you could choose. And choose the action with the highest probability of beneficial steady-state, but only with a transition that is acceptable even if it fails. (E.g. do not “kill half the population so the other half can thrive,” because if the other half doesn’t thrive it’s just an atrocity with no upside.)
my claim is on the margin. It is about apportioning effort amongst the parliament of values such that we get strong advocates for marginal views that carry some value.
I think I understand your argument. Mine is that it your proposition selects equally for truly heinous things that a few misguided people think are just. Most recent example I can think of is forced birth. Some people think it’s good, it’s opposed by a majority, but it leads to a default of bad outcomes (unequal rights based on biological sex, increased probability of death for problematic pregnancies, psychological trauma for rape victims, etc.)
I just can’t see a just society being possible by your proposition.
This made me think of a novel to me moral principle: when choosing among goods, the best is the one the greatest number of people oppose (modulo Bayesian updates on why they oppose it).
I’m new here so take this with a grain of salt, but I think your stance needs justification. I don’t think the number of people with a particular opinion has any bearing on the correctness of any choice. Opinion is easily swayed on large scales. This has been pretty obvious in the open for a decade or so now.
Jefferson wanted public education as an inoculation against people being easily swayed. It is necessary for voters to understand the context of their votes for a healthy democracy. The US does not have that now. Education is the first thing to be attacked leading to dictatorships. That is where the US is currently headed. (Disagree if you want, I hope I am wrong.)
I think the “goodness” is only available with the outcome. If you mean well but don’t think about ramifications, you can do atrocities in your ignorance. I think it is appropriate to take action with educated intent rather than stabbing in the dark with polls and feelings. Get real data.
Figure out what will happen for each action you could choose. And choose the action with the highest probability of beneficial steady-state, but only with a transition that is acceptable even if it fails. (E.g. do not “kill half the population so the other half can thrive,” because if the other half doesn’t thrive it’s just an atrocity with no upside.)
my claim is on the margin. It is about apportioning effort amongst the parliament of values such that we get strong advocates for marginal views that carry some value.
I think I understand your argument. Mine is that it your proposition selects equally for truly heinous things that a few misguided people think are just. Most recent example I can think of is forced birth. Some people think it’s good, it’s opposed by a majority, but it leads to a default of bad outcomes (unequal rights based on biological sex, increased probability of death for problematic pregnancies, psychological trauma for rape victims, etc.)
I just can’t see a just society being possible by your proposition.