If you were sufficiently certain that the situation is as you describe (least convenient world), yes, it would be OK to threaten (and carry out the threat). If however you obtained the information through a bug-ridden device that is known to be biased towards overconfidence in this kind of situations—then such threats would be immoral. And I think most imaginable real-world situations fall in the second category.
I think the only thing we disagree on then is the word “immoral”. I would say that it may very well be incorrect, but not immoral, so long as he is being sincere in his motivations.
ETA: ok after thinking about it some more, I guess I could see how it might be considered immoral (in the least convenient world to the point of view I’m arguing). I guess it kind of depends on the specifics of what’s going on inside his head, which I’m of course not privy to.
I’m not sure it would count as “immoral”, guess it also depends of how you define the terms.
I see this as a case of the more general “does the end justify the means?”. In principle, the end do justify the means, if you’re sufficiently confident that those means will indeed result in that end, and that the end is really valuable. In practice, the human brain is biased towards finding ends to justify means that just happen to bring power or prestige to the human in question. In fact, most people doing anything widely considered “bad” can come up with a good story about how it’s kinda justified.
So, part of what makes a human moral is willingness to correct this, to listen to the voice of doubt, or at least to consider that one may be wrong, especially when taking action that might harm others.
If you were sufficiently certain that the situation is as you describe (least convenient world), yes, it would be OK to threaten (and carry out the threat). If however you obtained the information through a bug-ridden device that is known to be biased towards overconfidence in this kind of situations—then such threats would be immoral. And I think most imaginable real-world situations fall in the second category.
I think the only thing we disagree on then is the word “immoral”. I would say that it may very well be incorrect, but not immoral, so long as he is being sincere in his motivations.
ETA: ok after thinking about it some more, I guess I could see how it might be considered immoral (in the least convenient world to the point of view I’m arguing). I guess it kind of depends on the specifics of what’s going on inside his head, which I’m of course not privy to.
I’m not sure it would count as “immoral”, guess it also depends of how you define the terms.
I see this as a case of the more general “does the end justify the means?”. In principle, the end do justify the means, if you’re sufficiently confident that those means will indeed result in that end, and that the end is really valuable. In practice, the human brain is biased towards finding ends to justify means that just happen to bring power or prestige to the human in question. In fact, most people doing anything widely considered “bad” can come up with a good story about how it’s kinda justified.
So, part of what makes a human moral is willingness to correct this, to listen to the voice of doubt, or at least to consider that one may be wrong, especially when taking action that might harm others.