= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Strange7 comments on Single Point of Moral Failure - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (69)
The point is, if you were asked to do something obviously immoral, but that could conceivably be justified, and that nobody else could do for you. Maybe some atrocity related to your job.
Me neither, honestly, but it's popular enough around here I thought I'd give it a shot.
"Obviously immoral" and "conceivably justifiable" are mutually exclusive by my definitions. I would plug the act into my standard moral function, which apparently answers the question "is there a single point of moral failure" with "no," at least for me.
What I mean is, something which would under normal circumstances be bad, but given very specific conditions would be the best way to prevent something even worse, and further, that demonstrating those conditions would be difficult.
Yes, that's what I understood it to mean, and I view it as a trolley problem with error bars and "leadership influence" in the form of being from EY.