An Ethical Dilemma

Butterfly effect, domino theory, whatever you want to call it... the world is complicated

 Everything is Very Confusing!

          Not everything can be equal. Some things are simply better than others. Driving a car 100 miles is better than walking 100 miles... or is it? It might be easier on our feet, and it might be more comfortable, but walking is better for the environment and it would decrease traffic on the road. But if we decided to outlaw cars because they're unethical, many people wouldn't be able to get to work, which would make it impossible for them to earn money, and they need money to buy food and shelter. But what if we decide to outlaw cars because evidence shows that they're directly causing cancer and lung problems due to pollution? Does this reasoning make the decision better? Does it change it at all?
           Are you confused already? I am too. I couldn't really understand this blog question until I rewatched one of my favorite shows, The Good Place. The show essentially calls into questions everything we know about what it means to be good. In the case of this week's blog question, we're calling into question everything we know about what it means to be right. If we decide something is correct epistemically, we're also deciding whether or not it's correct axiologically and praxeologically (though they don't necessarily have to have the same answer).
          One of the main revelations in The Good Place is that our decisions are inherently immoral because of how complicated the world is. I argue that this extends to our debate here. Our decisions about what is good and bad are also good and bad because of the different and confounding ways of approaching, in Todorov's case, the "other."
          To clarify, and stay relevant to the question, there is no correct dismissal of alternatives. If the alternatives exist, it is because someone believed they had some kind of value. When we dismiss the alternatives, we are dismissing their value. At the very least, we create or reinforce a hierarchy of value. We're saying "that's great, but this is greater."
         Is that necessarily a bad thing? Epistemically, probably not. It's usually better when we have more knowledge about some topic or issue and its effects. The green revolution, for example, was good because it decreased food scarcity and made food more affordable and accessible. However, now we know more about its effects and we can see how big agriculture corporations, factory farming, and monoculture are harmful to the environment and decrease productivity in the long term. So we have to find an alternative. Axiologically, we might say that big agriculture is superior in the hierarchy because it produces more than traditional farming. Praxeologically, though, we can take into account the views of farmers (small farmers are dying out, as are their communities) or urban populations (who might support rooftop gardens for more local food sources). Now, we don't really have a solution because the issue has become complicated with many variables.
           This is why we can't necessarily argue that gaining more empirical knowledge will lead us to a better solution. We also can't say that it creates a hierarchy (at least not a clear-cut one). We can say that by dismissing one alternative, we are putting another higher, either epistemically, axiologically, praxeologically, or some combination of these. Our world is too complicated for there not to be consequences and side effects for every decision (or lack thereof) we make.