‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Good people refuse to do bad things

144 points · 147 comments · Brajeshwar

  1. cogman10 · · focus · HN ↗
    I disagree with this article and here's why.

    Life isn't black and white with "good/bad". Further, there's no objective measure of what is good or bad. Everything is a shade of gray.

    You certainly could argue that some actions are absolutely good or absolutely bad, but those aren't the majority of actions people take on a day to day basis. People aren't often faced with "should I kill this person" or "should I publish the cure for cancer". Instead it's "should I eat a hamburger or a salad" or "Should I finish this jira case or that jira case".

    For example, you could argue that anyone working in an automotive plant is doing something bad because they are helping to produce vehicles which burn fuel which perpetuates climate change. But those plants also often produce parts for farm equipment or vehicles used to transport necessities like food.

    People working at AI companies can make similar personal calculations. Like yeah there are bad things happening because of AI, but also they can believe that there are good things that can come as a result such as research and product developments.

    1. dofm · · focus · HN ↗
      There may not be a definition of “good”.

      But there are several workable contextual definitions of bad; it’s your job to know what they are.

      For example:

      - it would cause a harm to someone who was not made aware of the risk up front.

      - it would cause someone to lose a job they didn’t know was under threat.

      - the way the harm occurs precludes its only corrective/curative action or has no adequate compensation.

      Bad things are almost always contextual but also almost always obvious in that context.

      You can’t avoid bad things that you can’t foresee. If you do not attempt to avoid, avert or mitigate bad things that you can foresee, then you are one of the bad things.

      Things may not always be black and white but it is wise not to seek the protection of the grey.

      1. SaltyBackendGuy · · focus · HN ↗
        > it would cause someone to lose a job they didn’t know was under threat

        Under this guidance, wouldn't almost every technological advancement then qualify as bad? i.e. typewriter repair, etc.

        1. dofm · · focus · HN ↗
          To address the second part of the sentence you quoted, in this generic “doesn’t progress mean all jobs are impermanent?” sense, don’t people generically understand their jobs are generically under threat at some baseline level from progress? It doesn’t absolve you from the harm of being specifically responsible.

          I mean everyone has to die someday but that doesn’t excuse murder.

          1. [deleted] · · focus · HN ↗

            [deleted]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.