Hacker News Reader

I clearly misspoke and people are misunderstanding my point, which is only that “hurting people is worth it” is a horrible argument and shouldn’t be a valuable thing, we can and should save the 20 kids without causing harm to the 2

doing nothing is better than something if that something might hurt people without understanding how and why

View on HN

People are misunderstanding your point because you are doing a terrible job of explaining it.

What specifically do you disagree with? I’ve explained it three different times now and can’t delete my original comment so please let me know

This research shows physicians harmed kids recommending they avoid allergens like peanuts, is that something we should ignore because all the benefits of science are “worth it”?

Science is amazing not because it’s always right, but because it (should) strive to always do better next time

All you're fucking doing is saying "Don't save a million people of 1 person is going to be harmed" OR the utterly trite point of "wouldn't it be great if everything was magical and no one was harmed by anything ever".

What you’re describing is called utilitarian ethics, the exact tradeoff is called the trolly problem. Ethics is much more complicated than a single comment thread

“it’s worth it” is a horrible argument when people’s health is on the line.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com