I think you mistakenly equal actually doing good vs. not doing harm. Like being vegan is not doing good. It’s just not contributing to the harm. And I agree, not contributing to harm is not good enough. And I understand in the end the numbers are important.
But as fish_in_a_firetruck already pointed out, the psychological ripple effects get ignored, not only for forming habits of doing good, but also of not doing harm. Is a person who saved 10 lives free to kill 9 lives and still deserve to be called equally good as the one who only managed to save one live in the first place but tries not to harm anyone? People normalize doing harm when you discount the difference between doing good vs. not doing harm.
I agree not to be perfectionist before putting something out there. But I do believe one should not only measure the theoretical validity of an argument but more so the impact it has on others beyond what you actually try to say—like the risk of how these arguments can be twisted to justify doing harm. I myself have my hot takes on controversial topic—where this is a big issue.
Your “”This will lead to value drift” Track your actual impact. Pick both leading indicators (effort) and lagging ones (outcomes). If outcomes don’t improve, pivot.” Is brushing this off too quickly and too easily, as if that fixes the risk.
I would love to see a republishing with flashing out the risks and objections, to mitigate those risks while keeping the very important points you are making.
I think you mistakenly equal actually doing good vs. not doing harm. Like being vegan is not doing good. It’s just not contributing to the harm. And I agree, not contributing to harm is not good enough. And I understand in the end the numbers are important.
But as fish_in_a_firetruck already pointed out, the psychological ripple effects get ignored, not only for forming habits of doing good, but also of not doing harm. Is a person who saved 10 lives free to kill 9 lives and still deserve to be called equally good as the one who only managed to save one live in the first place but tries not to harm anyone? People normalize doing harm when you discount the difference between doing good vs. not doing harm.
I agree not to be perfectionist before putting something out there. But I do believe one should not only measure the theoretical validity of an argument but more so the impact it has on others beyond what you actually try to say—like the risk of how these arguments can be twisted to justify doing harm. I myself have my hot takes on controversial topic—where this is a big issue.
Your “”This will lead to value drift” Track your actual impact. Pick both leading indicators (effort) and lagging ones (outcomes). If outcomes don’t improve, pivot.” Is brushing this off too quickly and too easily, as if that fixes the risk.
I would love to see a republishing with flashing out the risks and objections, to mitigate those risks while keeping the very important points you are making.