Related question: are people here overly optimistic about plans to do good that impose “diffuse” harms (small harms imposed on millions of people)?
Example: a proposal was floated here to try to persuade Craigslist to run ads and to donate the ad income to high-impact charity. No one suggested that the diffuse harm of subjecting the hundreds of millions of readers of Craigslist to ads that they would not otherwise be subjected to might cancel out the expected good of the proposal.
How should effort be balanced between getting people to do more good and getting them to do less harm?
Related question: are people here overly optimistic about plans to do good that impose “diffuse” harms (small harms imposed on millions of people)?
Example: a proposal was floated here to try to persuade Craigslist to run ads and to donate the ad income to high-impact charity. No one suggested that the diffuse harm of subjecting the hundreds of millions of readers of Craigslist to ads that they would not otherwise be subjected to might cancel out the expected good of the proposal.