Survey sent in the email: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ZSJH2G3
340 whole workers?
Total number of amazon employees : 750,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_(company)
So 749,660 employees did not protest? Shouldn't that be the real news?
So all that "stakeholder capitalism" recent discussion was pure BS? [1]
[1] https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry...
We can be a nation that believes in war
And still tells the world that we don't
Let the flag for Hypocrisy
Microsoft is delighted to announce we are the digital transformation partner of #IPTC2020, the International Petroleum Technology conference, that kicks off tomorrow in Dahran until the 15th of January
https://twitter.com/Microsoft_Saudi/status/12162861906530508...
Oil companies don't need to worry, MS will be happy to provide equivalent services for similar rates.
1. Consequentialism requires us to model reality in order to predict consequences. Thus two consequentialists with different models of reality might prescribe different actions even if they have the same goals. From the outside, it's impossible to understand their model of reality entirely, so you can't assume that they aren't consequentialists just because they have different prescriptions from you.
2. Virtue ethics isn't always an ethical belief system in itself. Virtue ethics can be a strategy of using social pressure to reach consequentialist goals. From the outside, you can't tell whether they're using virtue ethics as the basis for there beliefs, or merely as a strategy for implementing a consequentialist ethic.
Combining these two, it's almost always premature to assume that people are virtue ethicists just because they prescribe different actions from what you would prescribe, on what appears to be a virtue ethics.
In a more general sense, that feeling of smug superiority I feel when I think someone is just virtual signaling is a sign of bias in my own thinking. To quote Scott Alexander[1]:
> I will make a confession. Every time someone talks about the stupidity of creationists, moon-hoaxers, and homeopaths, I cringe.
> It’s not that moon-hoaxers, homeopaths et al aren’t dumb. They are. It’s not even that these people don’t do real harm. They do.
> What annoys me about the people who harp on moon-hoaxing and homeopathy – without any interest in the rest of medicine or space history – is that it seems like an attempt to Other irrationality.
> It’s saying “Look, over here! It’s irrational people, believing things that we can instantly dismiss as dumb. Things we feel no temptation, not one bit, to believe. It must be that they are defective and we are rational.”
> But to me, the rationality movement is about Self-ing irrationality.
> It is about realizing that you, yes you, might be wrong about the things that you’re most certain of, and nothing can save you except maybe extreme epistemic paranoia.
TL;DR: Don't dismiss people because they appear to be implementing a virtue ethic; they may actually be implementing a consequentialist ethic.
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/15/the-cowpox-of-doubt/
And H.R. 763 has strong support of both climate scientists and economists as an effective way to reduce our emissions and mitigate climate change.
It sounds like you want to distance consequentialism from tyranny. As a consequentialist, I can see the draw, but I think that it's vital that we admit that consequentialism, improperly applied, can be used to justify tyranny. If we pretend that can't happen, then we won't "notice the skulls"[1]--that is, we won't notice when consequentialists are supporting tyranny in our midst, because we've been arguing all along that that can't happen. It's vital that we see where consequentialism can go wrong so that we can take steps to prevent it from going wrong.
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/07/yes-we-have-noticed-th...