I agree that in the abstract a 50:1 benefit:cost ratio sounds great. But it also strikes me as naïve utilitarianism (although maybe I am using that term wrong?). To make it more concrete:
If you have a book that you enjoy reading, can I steal it and copy it and share it with 50 of my friends?
Is you stealing $100 from me justified if it generates far greater value when you donate that $100 to other people?
If we can save 50 lives by killing John Doe and harvesting his organs, does that justify the act?
If I can funnel millions or billions of dollars toward highly effective charities by lying to or otherwise misleading investors, does that benefit justify the cost?
These are, of course, simplistic examples and analogies, rather than some sort of rock solid thesis. And this isn’t a dissertation that I’ve thought out well; this is mostly impulse and gut feeling on my part, so maybe after a lot of thought and reading on the topic I’ll feel very differently. So I’d encourage you to look at this as my fuzzy explorations/musings rather than as some kind of confident stance.
Any maybe that 50:1 example is so extreme that some things that would normally be abhorrent do actually make sense. Maybe the benefit of pirating an ebook (in which one person has their property stolen and thousands of people benefit from it) is so large that it is morally justified. So perhaps for my example should have chosen a more modest ratio, like 5:1. 😅
I’ll also note that I think I tend to learn a bit toward negative utilitarianism, so I prioritize avoiding harm a bit more than I prioritize causing good. I think this makes me have a fairly high bar for these kinds of the ends justify the means scenarios.
I agree that in the abstract a 50:1 benefit:cost ratio sounds great. But it also strikes me as naïve utilitarianism (although maybe I am using that term wrong?). To make it more concrete:
If you have a book that you enjoy reading, can I steal it and copy it and share it with 50 of my friends?
Is you stealing $100 from me justified if it generates far greater value when you donate that $100 to other people?
If we can save 50 lives by killing John Doe and harvesting his organs, does that justify the act?
If I can funnel millions or billions of dollars toward highly effective charities by lying to or otherwise misleading investors, does that benefit justify the cost?
These are, of course, simplistic examples and analogies, rather than some sort of rock solid thesis. And this isn’t a dissertation that I’ve thought out well; this is mostly impulse and gut feeling on my part, so maybe after a lot of thought and reading on the topic I’ll feel very differently. So I’d encourage you to look at this as my fuzzy explorations/musings rather than as some kind of confident stance.
Any maybe that 50:1 example is so extreme that some things that would normally be abhorrent do actually make sense. Maybe the benefit of pirating an ebook (in which one person has their property stolen and thousands of people benefit from it) is so large that it is morally justified. So perhaps for my example should have chosen a more modest ratio, like 5:1. 😅
I’ll also note that I think I tend to learn a bit toward negative utilitarianism, so I prioritize avoiding harm a bit more than I prioritize causing good. I think this makes me have a fairly high bar for these kinds of the ends justify the means scenarios.