Anything where the goal is objectively to help the other person. Pain caused by the dentist, for instance. That’s technically harm, but it’s necessary, and it’s objectively helping the person being subjected to pain.
Anything ideology-related (like conversion camps) is unnecessary harm, because ideology (or morality, for that matter) is subjective.
Locking someone in prison is necessary harm - you’re protecting other people from the harm caused by the person locked up, and that’s an objective fact.
Killing someone in a defensive war is necessary harm - you’re the one being invaded, you can either defend yourself or get killed.
You’re following the same train of thought that justifies a lot of the rich futurists’ actions. It’s objectively better to help 20 million people down the line even if it costs 1 million lives today, right? I mean, net 19 million. To me, that’s simple.
No, because rich futurists base their actions solely on the belief in a subjective theory. There are many ways to achieve what they’re after, and many of those ways do not require anyone’s hurt.
The subjective theory that there will be a future? Or their subjective theory on what to do about it, which you are pitting against your own subjective theory on what to do about it? What is objective about your claim that there are many ways to help as many people as possible that don’t involve any hardships?
Well now we have to discuss what harm we consider “necessary”, and that’s where things get pretty tricky.
Anything where the goal is objectively to help the other person. Pain caused by the dentist, for instance. That’s technically harm, but it’s necessary, and it’s objectively helping the person being subjected to pain.
Anything ideology-related (like conversion camps) is unnecessary harm, because ideology (or morality, for that matter) is subjective.
Locking someone in prison is necessary harm - you’re protecting other people from the harm caused by the person locked up, and that’s an objective fact.
Killing someone in a defensive war is necessary harm - you’re the one being invaded, you can either defend yourself or get killed.
To me, it’s all fairly simple.
You’re following the same train of thought that justifies a lot of the rich futurists’ actions. It’s objectively better to help 20 million people down the line even if it costs 1 million lives today, right? I mean, net 19 million. To me, that’s simple.
No, because rich futurists base their actions solely on the belief in a subjective theory. There are many ways to achieve what they’re after, and many of those ways do not require anyone’s hurt.
The subjective theory that there will be a future? Or their subjective theory on what to do about it, which you are pitting against your own subjective theory on what to do about it? What is objective about your claim that there are many ways to help as many people as possible that don’t involve any hardships?
Let’s backtrack a bit: what do you mean by “rich futurists”, because - apparently - it’s not what I mean.