Ban on single-use plastic cutlery comes into force in England

Not necessarily. That could still just as easily turn out to be the option that ends up causing more suffering (i.e. not the one we want).

Correct, but that doesn't stop fixing climate change from being the best possible option.

Of course it does. If it ends up causing more suffering than the other would have, it’s not the best one.

Which is a mute point because we have no way of evaluating the risks, etc, associated with those outcomes.

The same is also true for the “might avoid suffering entirely” outcome; we don’t know the likelihood of it. So if this point is moot then yours is equally moot.

Not at all, because the point is that preventing climate change gives us that possibility. Ultimately it is worth it even if there are potentially other outcomes. Doing nothing will guarantee suffering.

But we don’t know the likelihood of that possibility. Using your own argument from your previous post, that alone is enough to make this a moot point.

Thats why I say you’re cherry picking. You’re changing the argument for each of the two possibilities (i.e. your approach could cause more suffering or less suffering than doing nothing) as and when it suits you.

It isn't though. If the goal is to minimise suffering then we should go for the option which gives us a non-zero chance of either having no suffering or having less suffering than we would have otherwise (i.e. the situations where suffering would be minimised).

That this option could give us a worse outcome is neither here nor there

Exactly! And the option of doing nothing also has a non-zero chance of resulting in less suffering than we would have otherwise.

This argument applies to both approaches, so it gives you no reason to single out your approach as preferable to the other. That’s why it is cherry picking to do so.



But that contradicts what you’ve said above. You’ve said you care about choosing an option with a non-zero chance of having less suffering. The fact that your option could result in more suffering means that the other option has a non-zero chance in being the one that results in less. Which makes this entirely relevant.

So what if it “guarantees at least some suffering”? That’s no indication that the other approach will involve less. It might, or it might not.

We want to pick the approach with less suffering than the other. This tells us absolutely nothing about which one that is.

The probabilities surrounding this are completely unknown, so the point about worse scenatios is irrelevant.

This statement is simply wrong.

If probabilities are unknown, it means the point about worse scenarios is relevant. Because without probabilities, you have no way of predicting whether the outcome of your approach will be better or worse than doing nothing (since both are equally valid possibilities).

If you want to say "the point about worse scenarios is irrelevant; despite the uncertainty, my approach will still probably result a better outcome than doing nothing ", you need information on probabilities.

It isn't wrong at all.

Yes, it is wrong to say that "probabilities are unknown, therefore it is irrelevant that my approach may result in more suffering than doing nothing". I explained why in my previous post. Simply saying "it isn't wrong at all" isn't a counter-argument. Until you can provide one, the rest of your post is still cherry-picking.

I provided the counter argument. The goal is to minimise suffering so, in this context, the best course of action would be to prevent climate change. I have explained why several times now.

That is not a counter argument, it’s just a statement of your position.

You have not explained why you’ve labelled one of the two possible outcomes as “irrelevant” when probabilities are unknown for both. Until you do, it is cherry-picking.

I have explained this already.

The problem is that you are assigning a logic regard risks, severity, etc, to a situation where that information is completely unknown (and will probably be always unknown).

You haven't specifically answered my question. The question was, when information regarding risks and severity etc. is unknown for both outcomes, why are you singling out one outcome as "irrelevant"?

Why exactly is that a problem? Risks and severities being unknown doesn't stop them from existing. It just means they're unknown.

I answered this question already. It is irrelevant because the logic which would otherwise make it relevant doesn't apply to this situation; severity, risk, etc, are completely unknown and will always be unknown, so the approach to minimising suffering (or anything else, for that matter) would be different.