The Technology to be Moral

[alicorn24]

As we have more technological capability, we have the capacity to accomplish more good. This creates more obligations than we would have without this technological capability. For example, being able to treat a disease makes it wrong to withhold that treatment (under many conditions) from people afflicted with the disease. Before the existence

Comments

[darkladyothsith]

I think it worth clearing up a couple of misconceptions about conservative viewpoints. Speaking generally, of course. There will be exceptions

[alicorn24]

1) I'm not in favor of farm subsidies either, in case that was unclear. My point was that it was ironic that we'd pay people not to work when it made no sense but would not pay people who did not work under more sensible circumstances

[michaelkeenan]

> I would like to see those statistics. I will only be impressed if they are stratified for income, since conservatives are often in a position to *have* more money, goods, and time. It would be highly interesting if they also donated more blood or were more likely to have jobs working with the disadvantaged, which is something I would be very surprised to see

[michaelkeenan]

May I invoke the LessWrong norm for stating your last position, just on the "how charitable are conservatives" question? I'm curious as to whether the information about conservative charitable efforts persuaded you that conservatives are unusually generous. But of course I don't want to pressure you into a lengthy or onerous reply.

Wei Dai suggested these options:
* I don't understand this yet. Still trying.
* I don't understand this. I give up.
* I agree.
* I disagree, and will write up the reasons later.
* I disagree, but don't want to bother writing out why.
* I need to think about this more.
* I already addressed this before.
* Other

[ext_181471]

"Why shouldn't the government allow the farmers to grow the crops, and then buy them and do something nice with them - perhaps in another country, where the market is not in danger of a glut?"

One problem with this is, there are no markets not in danger of a glut. All world markets are interconnected. If we gave away food in Ethiopia, it would still reduce the price of food here, since people are buying food in Ethiopia (not to mention disrupting local markets there, which isn't presently our concern).

One reason that we subsidize farmers is so that we are always growing more food than we need, while still keeping them at a good enough wage to keep working. If we stopped subsidizing farmers, fewer people would be farmers as the market self-corrects. But then if there is an emergency and we need more food, it would take a long time for the market to correct itself due to the time it takes to grow food; our people could starve in the mean time (or, more realistically, there would be economic disruption / inflation / etc.).

[michaelkeenan]

> As we have more technological capability, we have the capacity to accomplish more good. This creates more obligations than we would have without this technological capability. For example, being able to treat a disease makes it wrong to withhold that treatment (under many conditions) from people afflicted with the disease. Before the existence of the cure, standing around and watching somebody die of the illness was not an unjust act

[alicorn24]

>What (if anything) does this imply about our obligations to create technological capacity?

It is clearly an axiological good to obtain the power to help more and more effectively. Whether it's a moral obligation depends on one's ethical views. I'm not committed in my ethical views to saying we must create more tech; but I have no reason to object to it

[michaelkeenan]

> There's a certain emotional reaction associated with certain moral judgments, but the subjects of those judgments don't bear enough similarity to each other that I consider it sensible to identify them as being matters of something like "purity". What makes a thing "impure"?

Well, as a New York Times writer summarized Haidt's theory on the origin of disgust:
"The emotion of disgust probably evolved when people became meat eaters and had to learn which foods might be contaminated with bacteria, a problem not presented by plant foods. Disgust was then extended to many other categories, he argues, to people who were unclean, to unacceptable sexual practices and to a wide class of bodily functions and behaviors that were seen as separating humans from animals."

Haidt has a paper on the specific subjects of disgust, but unfortunately that paper is gone from the free web...except here at the Internet Wayback Machine

[michaelkeenan]

I should add, in case it's not obvious, that aid to important technology doesn't just come from donations; it comes from people buying stuff they want for normal selfish reasons too.

Also, improved economic growth decreases death, suffering and stupidity in mundane ways too. When people are wealthier, they can afford safety devices (like smoke alarms or cars with airbags), healthier food, gym memberships, and more education.