If in World A, the majority was an Alice … not doing the job they loved ( imagine a teacher who thinks education is important, but emotionally dislikes students) , unreciprically giving away some arbitrary % of their earnings, etc...
Is that actually better than World B? A world where the majority are Bobs, sucessful at their chosen craft, giving away some amount of their earnings but maintaining a majority they are comfortable with.
I’m surprised Bob didn’t make the obvious rebuttals:
Alice, why aren’t you giving away 51% of your earnings? What methodology are you applying that says 50% is the best amount to give, can’t any arbitrary person X, giving 51% and working harder than you, make the same arguments you are making to me, to you?
I’ve calculated that investing my earnings ( either back into the economy via purchasing goods or via stocks), will lead to the most good as I’m actually incentivized to prioritizing the growth of my investments (and commiting to donating it all after my death), whereas I cannot ensure the same for any orginzation I donate to.
Where Alice’s argument is very strong, I would say is that she is arguing that being Generative, is a virtue, closely tied to Generosity.
The implication ( which Bob argues could be harmful/counterproductive) that follows is that if being Generative is a Virtue ( or a precurser to the virtue of Generosity) that implies that Sloth is a Sin, or atleast a prerequsite/enabler for the Sin of anti-Generosity—basically Greed.
Of course, telling someone that they are being too slothful, may or may not be counterproductive—which is effectively Bob and Alices discussion.
Perhaps, Bob is arguing from a principle of “do no harm” that doctors operate under, and so he would avoid harming people by calling them slothful. Essentially, he wouldn’t pull the lever in this application of the trolley problem.
Whereas, Alice is arguing from a principle of, inaction is also an action, and so she views the non-action of not pulling the lever as worse than explicitly pulling the lever.
Or, she has a belief of the amount of net harm, being in the favor of risking harm via calling Bob slothful.
There is a compromise position, of establishing some kind of sufficient condition for determining how someone would respond to the points made above. Funny enough, people are having that very discussion about where to even post this article.
If in World A, the majority was an Alice … not doing the job they loved ( imagine a teacher who thinks education is important, but emotionally dislikes students) , unreciprically giving away some arbitrary % of their earnings, etc...
Is that actually better than World B? A world where the majority are Bobs, sucessful at their chosen craft, giving away some amount of their earnings but maintaining a majority they are comfortable with.
I’m surprised Bob didn’t make the obvious rebuttals:
Alice, why aren’t you giving away 51% of your earnings? What methodology are you applying that says 50% is the best amount to give, can’t any arbitrary person X, giving 51% and working harder than you, make the same arguments you are making to me, to you?
I’ve calculated that investing my earnings ( either back into the economy via purchasing goods or via stocks), will lead to the most good as I’m actually incentivized to prioritizing the growth of my investments (and commiting to donating it all after my death), whereas I cannot ensure the same for any orginzation I donate to.
Where Alice’s argument is very strong, I would say is that she is arguing that being Generative, is a virtue, closely tied to Generosity.
The implication ( which Bob argues could be harmful/counterproductive) that follows is that if being Generative is a Virtue ( or a precurser to the virtue of Generosity) that implies that Sloth is a Sin, or atleast a prerequsite/enabler for the Sin of anti-Generosity—basically Greed.
Of course, telling someone that they are being too slothful, may or may not be counterproductive—which is effectively Bob and Alices discussion.
Perhaps, Bob is arguing from a principle of “do no harm” that doctors operate under, and so he would avoid harming people by calling them slothful. Essentially, he wouldn’t pull the lever in this application of the trolley problem.
Whereas, Alice is arguing from a principle of, inaction is also an action, and so she views the non-action of not pulling the lever as worse than explicitly pulling the lever.
Or, she has a belief of the amount of net harm, being in the favor of risking harm via calling Bob slothful.
There is a compromise position, of establishing some kind of sufficient condition for determining how someone would respond to the points made above. Funny enough, people are having that very discussion about where to even post this article.
So, props for a job well done.