Will MacAskill on the moral case against ever leaving the house, whether now is the hinge of history, and the culture of effective altruism

Abstract

The “Paralysis Argument” suggests that seemingly harmless actions, like driving to the movies, have significant moral implications. By altering traffic patterns, you influence conception events, ultimately changing the identity of future generations. As a result, you may inadvertently save or harm people through preventable car accidents. Consequentialists argue that the benefits and costs balance out, while non-consequentialists believe causing harm is worse than benefitting others. This implies that non-consequentialists should avoid leaving the house to avoid potential harm, even though it deprives them of a free movie. One solution is to adopt a “Pareto principle” where actions are acceptable if everyone affected would approve or be indifferent. Another option is to focus on long-term future improvement to offset the harms caused by individual actions. – AI-generated abstract.