I'm not arguing that taking a stance is bad per se, i'm arguing that almost anything you might want to take a stance on is subjective.
As an example:
Reduce harm: depends on perspective (define harm?), timeframe, priorities.
Avoid collapse of what?, current society? which one? all of them ?
Maximise benefit is the same as reduce harm in its subjectiveness and "everyone" is a big ask given that some perspectives on certain points are potentially mutually exclusive.
A somewhat topical example would be:
"Let everyone get covid-19 by not imposing measures designed to stop the spread, that way the stock market takes less of a plunge because [Insert economic reasons here]"
vs
"Impose measures to follow the model that most analysis(from current data) agrees will minimise the loss of life, at the cost of the stock market taking a hit"
How do you maximise benefit for both parties in that case? only impose half off the measures? who decides what is the fair middle ground ?
As an example: Reduce harm: depends on perspective (define harm?), timeframe, priorities. Avoid collapse of what?, current society? which one? all of them ? Maximise benefit is the same as reduce harm in its subjectiveness and "everyone" is a big ask given that some perspectives on certain points are potentially mutually exclusive.
A somewhat topical example would be:
"Let everyone get covid-19 by not imposing measures designed to stop the spread, that way the stock market takes less of a plunge because [Insert economic reasons here]" vs "Impose measures to follow the model that most analysis(from current data) agrees will minimise the loss of life, at the cost of the stock market taking a hit"
How do you maximise benefit for both parties in that case? only impose half off the measures? who decides what is the fair middle ground ?