what
thats not quite true.
there is a slight put of blame on them
but its less than the blame being put on the thing actively killing them
But you could stop those problems from happening, and are choosing not to
so the consequences are the same as the consequences of causing those problems in the first place
Oh yeah they have no obligation to, it’s really not their problem tbh. It may sound morally wrong to you, but it’s honestly not their problem.
I set off the nukes, causing a lot of people to die
does that mean that the scientist who willingly posted their findings on how particular thing could cause big boom is at fault
but ye.
the passive person is still responsible for their death, but less so.
not to mention, is it truly at no cost to them? would they not have to give money, time, or any other resource to do it, just: here’s a button to save them. you can take it with you if you like. just press it at any time to save them
1 Like
I get in a twitter tier argument about ethics, doing terribly on a paper as a result
Does that make the person I’m arguing with a bad person even though they understand that I have school to worry about
Do you know how much money it would take if someone found immortality to give it to everyone else
It’s honestly easier to sell it to a few wealthy people and then be set for life
the same works in reverse order im afraid. if the scientist was walking by later and chose not to press the “abort launch” button, they’re at fault, but not as much
lawfulness = morals
because in consequentialism this lawfulness argument is correct, while in morals it kinda just no
okay guys so
if you found the cure to immortality, how would you make the most profits from it? Let’s say you were dirt poor
I think it’s relevant to my ethical intuitions that in the second case they knew the consequence of their action would absolutely and unconditionally be ‘everyone gets nuked and dies,’ whereas in the first case that was a possible consequence but not a guaranteed one
but in any case I do in fact endorse the statement ‘scientists working on developing dangerous technologies such as nuclear weapons should be careful with whom they share the results of their research on said technologies’
I can imagine a great way to do it is public pressure the wealthy people.
“The starting price for the first immortality vial is 200 million. Each time someone buys it, the price goes down. Eventually everyone will be able to afford It, however if no one buys it the price won’t ever go down”
Do you know how much the public will scream at the people with that much money
show that this ‘prototype serum’ works on bacteria
get sponsorships en masse from world governments
sell small amounts of it on the black market for egregious prices
eventually cash out for big pharma for obscene amounts of cash