The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics says that you can have a particle spinning clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time – until you look at it, at which point it definitely becomes one or the other. The theory claims that observing reality fundamentally changes it.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics says that when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it. At the very least, you are to blame for not doing more. Even if you don’t make the problem worse, even if you make it slightly better, the ethical burden of the problem falls on you as soon as you observe it. In particular, if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster. I don’t subscribe to this school of thought, but it seems pretty popular.
5 Comments
kazuchijou_nat@piefed.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 2d
Like the spanish flu being named after the first country to speak about it?
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
The link seems broken.
(Or did I break it by observing it?)
CombatWombat@feddit.online · 1 pts · 2d
Thanks! I edited the post with a new link -- for some reason I got a totally different link when I opened it in the browser vs when I used the share flow, so hopefully this one works?
jpreston2005@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1d
I think there's more to at least one of the examples mentioned. Comparing a drowning child within your reach, to a child in a far off country that can be saved for just a $5 donation. The child drowning is an event you have agency with. You, yourself, are going to the river and pulling a child from it.
But the $5 donation... That child you will never see, and if you do see a picture of them, what chances are that you'd believe that that's that child you're saving, and even if you do believe, will you ever see them again? Can you be 100% certain that every cent of your $5 is going towards the purchase and administration of that life-saving vaccine to that child? That child that, you're not even totally sure is real, or needs saving? We've all heard about scams, and scams disguising themselves as charity aren't new either. Hell, our president and his entire family is no longer allowed to run a charity within the state of New York because they were laundering money through their "charities."
I think when we can actually see the problem, and we have real agency in the situation, then it becomes a moral imperative to act. But to act as a third party, whilst never witnessing the problem, or the person being helped... That's not a moral imperative. You don't have agency in the situation, someone else does. You're not witnessing the problem, you're hearing about it through the TV or internet. Are you really interacting with the problem, in the Copenhagen Interpretation, by hearing about something through a third party? I would say not.
HubertManne@piefed.social · 2 pts · 1d
benefiting from it is really seperate from trying to help and making it better but not solving it. also observing and interacting is really each seperate to. I mean we are all aware of many problems in the world that we can due fuck all about. really at that point its more about power and responsibility. the more capability you have to fix a problem or at least alleviate it that you are aware of the more responsibility you have to do so.