Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

yikeswhatshappening t1_jcv5779 wrote

I have several reservations. First, the argument here seems to implicitly operate on utilitarianism. While using utilitarianism is not bad, per se, 1) the article does not make this perspective explicit, and 2) there are numerous other competing philosophical positions which would answer the question differently and those are not addressed here. The discussion would have been more rich if it had been more conversant with competing discussions of the good.

Second, “certain knowledge” of the future is sort of a poor assumption as it is debatable whether this would ever apply in the real world.

Third, finally, there are issues with the thought experiment. It is quite manufactured, such that (as is philosophical tradition at this point) other thought examples could easily be marshaled that directly contradict the arguments here and would point us to the opposite conclusion. The thought experiment is quite two dimensional and further fails to capture real world complexity. And so, in the end, is this really “A case for withholding knowledge” or is this a fake scenario about an sun flare from the future that was fun to discuss on reddit.

3

thenousman OP t1_jcvco9a wrote

I agree with your first point. I do not claim to have made a comprehensive nor exhaustive defense. I’m a student and it’s just a blogpost, so take it for what it is. That said, I do plan to comeback to this and build upon it after I’m more familiar with the various positions and literature. And I will revise it to be more explicit and precise.

I dispute your second point, though, as it is a thought experiment and you should try and assume it to be the case, for the sake of argument. If it were the case, such that…then what are the moral implications of such and such…anyway, that’s the usefulness of thought experiments (though some people disagree and think thought experiments are useless; but I’m not one of those).

Third point, revisit my response to the second point above.

0

yikeswhatshappening t1_jcvf41i wrote

You don’t have to be comprehensive, which I would also suggest is both impossible and not useful. But if we are working out of an established framework, it is always good practice to disclose that. And arguing one view without considering alternatives hardly forms a “case” for anything.

Sure, we can make up scenarios all we want and use deductive reasoning. But if we agree this scenario is not realistic then this sort of makes my point, which is that this stops being “a case for withholding knowledge” that we can use in the real world and becomes “a conversation on reddit about withholding knowledge” for a fake scenario about a sun flare form the future. We can grant the assumptions and discuss the moral implications and it’s all good fun, to be sure. It just doesn’t have real world utility if our deductive process is starting from a place not congruent with the real world. That’s all.

2

thenousman OP t1_jcvo4xd wrote

Yeah, I totally get that it is an unlikely scenario, especially in our (and humanity’s) lifetime.

1

Poldini55 t1_jcvm4y2 wrote

Interesting idea.

But, I believe the case is inhuman. Astronomers rarely work independently. A rare discovery is never struck without an emotional response, especially if it's your lifelong goal to identify such a singular finding. That such a person would cooly make such a definitive conclusion and foresee such elaborate consequences outside his scope of expertise, is utterly irresponsible and thus immoral.

People in high levels of academics, corporations, and even government are never quacks (politicians are the weak link, obviously). Sure they make mistakes, and fall into moral hazards like the rest of us. They're usually highly cooperative and motivated individuals that rely on the work of others to advance in their own field. If they didn't follow or respect the work of their colleagues they'd most likely not make it far enough to be recognized. High achievers are not cynics in practical matters, they tend to work with high achievers and steer clear of others.

1

Shield_Lyger t1_jd0udtq wrote

I think that this is scaled too large. There are plenty of more personal situations that one can use to attempt to make the same point, because the basic premise is dirt simple: Does it make sense to inform someone of a situation that is likely to cause them fear, stress, sorrow or whatever intense emotion you care to name, when they have no agency over the situation, and once the occurrence is complete, whether they knew in advance is basically moot?

In the end, this comes across as a variation on a Trolley Problem, where there isn't really a "correct" answer, so the point is to better understand one's own thought process. I suspect a more down-to-Earth scenario would make this useful for that.

1