At one end of the spectrum is a thought experiment: one person has box with a button. Press the button and with probability 3/4 everyone dies, but with probability 1/4 everyone is granted huge benefits --- immortality etc. I say it's immoral for one person to make that decision on their own, without consulting anyone else. People deserve a say over their future; that's one reason we don't like dictatorships.
At the other end are people's normal actions that could have far-reaching consequences but almost certainly won't. At this end of the spectrum you're not restricting people's agency to a significant degree.
Arguing that because the spectrum exists and it's hard to formalize a cutoff point, we shouldn't try, is a form of the continuum fallacy.
>Arguing that because the spectrum exists and it's hard to formalize a cutoff point, we shouldn't try, is a form of the continuum fallacy.
Such an argument wasn't made.
It is a legitimate question. Where and when do you draw the line? And who does it? How are we formalising this?
You said
>Shouldn't we all have a say in this?
I am of the opinion that if this instance of this company doing this is being subjected to this level of scrutiny then there are many more which should be too.
What gave Elon the right to buy twitter? And I would imagine most actions that a relatively big corp takes fall under the same criteria. And most actions other governments takes also fall under this criteria?
These companies have a board and the governments (most?) have some form of voting. And in a free market you can also vote with your actions.
You are suggesting you want to have a direct line of voting for this specific instance of the problem?
Again, my question is. What exactly are you asking for? Do you want to vote on these? Do you want your government to do something about this?
At one end of the spectrum is a thought experiment: one person has box with a button. Press the button and with probability 3/4 everyone dies, but with probability 1/4 everyone is granted huge benefits --- immortality etc. I say it's immoral for one person to make that decision on their own, without consulting anyone else. People deserve a say over their future; that's one reason we don't like dictatorships.
At the other end are people's normal actions that could have far-reaching consequences but almost certainly won't. At this end of the spectrum you're not restricting people's agency to a significant degree.
Arguing that because the spectrum exists and it's hard to formalize a cutoff point, we shouldn't try, is a form of the continuum fallacy.