We probably wouldn’t know and hence the issue wouldn’t ger discussed.
It is plausible that if someone made widely known that they decided not to invite a speaker based on similar considerations it could have been discussed as well. As I expect “X is deplatformed by Y” to provoke a similar response to “X is canceled by Y” by people caring about the incident.
I am not sure it is a case of The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics as I doubt people who are arguing against would think that the decision is an improvement upon the status quo.
Hmm in my parent comment I said “structurally similar, though of course it is not exactly the same” which means I’m not defending that it’s exactly a case. However upon a reread I actually think considering it a noncentral example is not too badly off. I think the following (the primary characterization of Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics) is a fairly accurate representation:
when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it.
However it does not fill the secondary constraints Jai lays out:
At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster.
In this case, by choosing to invite a speaker and then (privately) cancelling it, they’ve indeed made the situation worse by a) wasting Hanson’s time and b) mildly degraded professional norms.
But that level of badness seems on the whole pretty mediocre/mundane to first order.
We probably wouldn’t know and hence the issue wouldn’t ger discussed.
It is plausible that if someone made widely known that they decided not to invite a speaker based on similar considerations it could have been discussed as well. As I expect “X is deplatformed by Y” to provoke a similar response to “X is canceled by Y” by people caring about the incident.
I am not sure it is a case of The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics as I doubt people who are arguing against would think that the decision is an improvement upon the status quo.
Hmm in my parent comment I said “structurally similar, though of course it is not exactly the same” which means I’m not defending that it’s exactly a case. However upon a reread I actually think considering it a noncentral example is not too badly off. I think the following (the primary characterization of Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics) is a fairly accurate representation:
However it does not fill the secondary constraints Jai lays out:
In this case, by choosing to invite a speaker and then (privately) cancelling it, they’ve indeed made the situation worse by a) wasting Hanson’s time and b) mildly degraded professional norms.
But that level of badness seems on the whole pretty mediocre/mundane to first order.