B&F's argument starts from the premise "if you are likely to commit a significant moral error when performing an activity, then you should avoid performing that activity." I argued that the premise is false: whether to perform the activity instead depends on whether the benefits outweigh the risks. That's enough to show that their argume…
B&F's argument starts from the premise "if you are likely to commit a significant moral error when performing an activity, then you should avoid performing that activity." I argued that the premise is false: whether to perform the activity instead depends on whether the benefits outweigh the risks. That's enough to show that their argument fails.
It's a further question whether the benefits in fact outweigh the risks. I think they do (as, it seems, do you), for the sorts of reasons mentioned in footnote 1. But skepticism about the tendency of reasoned argument to do more good than harm in the long run is not really the target of my post. (What would be the point in even trying to argue against such a view? One's interlocutor would presumably ignore all arguments as more likely to be harmful than helpful! It's an intellectual black hole.)
B&F's argument starts from the premise "if you are likely to commit a significant moral error when performing an activity, then you should avoid performing that activity." I argued that the premise is false: whether to perform the activity instead depends on whether the benefits outweigh the risks. That's enough to show that their argument fails.
It's a further question whether the benefits in fact outweigh the risks. I think they do (as, it seems, do you), for the sorts of reasons mentioned in footnote 1. But skepticism about the tendency of reasoned argument to do more good than harm in the long run is not really the target of my post. (What would be the point in even trying to argue against such a view? One's interlocutor would presumably ignore all arguments as more likely to be harmful than helpful! It's an intellectual black hole.)