That would depend entirely on the cost of the initiative and what other things, including potentially more effective ways of rescuing kidnapped children, could be done instead.
That would depend entirely on the cost of the initiative and what other things,
Um, obviously. The point is that the cost is just about nothing, especially if your current 404 is an apache default or a joke page. Nobody is suggesting some type of moral obligation, but if a repurposed 404 does bring a missing child home, the cost was clearly worth it.
including potentially more effective ways of rescuing kidnapped children, could be done instead.
It's a goddamn 404 page; it's use does not preclude any other methods of recovering kidnap victims.
You're thinking of time and money costs; those are just a small part. What about the costs of being reminded of such a terrible thing every time you hit a 404? And what about those costs for people who lost their child five or ten years ago, and for whom those are just terrible memories, with no hope left?
All great points. I'm reminded of that whenever I see one of those "cleft palate" pictures. It's a terrible thing of course, but it's not exactly something that lifts your spirits and should not be forced upon people.
You make an interesting point. I could see how these 404s could be in poor taste depending on the tone of the site, but I'm not really moved by the "someone might feel bad about something they saw on the internet" argument.
Opportunity costs always exist and should never be discounted. Yes, the opportunity cost for each instance is low, but it's also being spent by a whole lot of people.
That would depend entirely on the cost of the initiative and what other things, including potentially more effective ways of rescuing kidnapped children, could be done instead.
No, that is incorrect.
The program would be regarded as successful if it rescued one child at any cost.
It is possible that there are more effective ways, but the existence of those possibilities does not preclude a less effective way of being successful.
Additionally, it seems unlikely that any other "more effective" way would be precluded by this method so it is inaccurate to measure the effectiveness of this method vs other methods ("could be done instead") - it would almost certainly be done in addition to other things.
Finally, on a personal note I believe attempting to argue that returning a kidnapped child to their parents may NOT be regarded as a success because of the "cost of the initiative" is morally indefensible.
Finally, on a personal note I believe attempting to argue that returning a kidnapped child to their parents may NOT be regarded as a success because of the "cost of the initiative" is morally indefensible.
But surely this isn't the case or each of us would personally have to dedicate all of our own time and money to finding every missing child, correct? Why aren't you using your salary to run ads on Facebook with the faces of missing children? It might work...
But surely this isn't the case or each of us would personally have to dedicate all of our own time and money to finding every missing child, correct?
No.
"Success" in this case is defined by reuniting a parent with a child. Using monetary conditions to weigh that is immoral IMHO.
However, there is no implication that anyone should spend their money in this (or any other) way. Indeed, I don't believe that there is any moral imperative to implement this on their website. That is a personal decision and is best left to the person making it.
attempting to argue that returning a kidnapped child to their parents may NOT be regarded as a success because of the "cost of the initiative" is morally indefensible.
You're saying that any and all possible attempts at finding / returning a child would have zero costs associated, or that whatever the negative cost is irrelevant and should be disregarded. Imagine the government shifts a massive amount of spending towards finding missing children, and suspends the 4th amendment, hires a massive army of investigators and searches door to door to find missing children. Of course this is an exaggerated scenario but it's at least arguable that the negative costs associated with this plan could outweigh the benefits, and that this would be morally undesirable. I don't think there is ever a scenario where costs can be completely ignored / discounted to obtain any amount of beneficial outcome. If you agree with my point in the extreme case, but not in the original scenario, then the disagreement is one of degree not principle. i.e. "well it depends on the costs.." Exactly.
I'm saying that if your "exaggerated scenario" reunited a child with their parents it would be a success. I'm not arguing that something like that should be done, nor am I arguing that cost effectiveness cannot be considered.
I am saying that given that the prior condition of successfully reuniting a child with their parent then saying it was not successful because it cost too much is putting a price on the child's life. That is morally repugnant in this circumstance.
We're just dealing with two different definitions of success here aren't we?
Success Definition One: Success occurs when the child is returned. This is a binary outcome and you're right to say that if the child is returned then it simply is a success under this definition and nothing can change that.
Success Definition Two: The scheme works and is practical. This is a qualitative outcome which does require comparing apples to oranges (or as you emotively put it; "putting a price on a child's life"). If Bill Gates offered 12 billion dollars for the return of a child, no questions asked, no law enforcement involved, it might work very well indeed, but cannot be called a success under this definition.
With regard to the 'prior condition', I would still argue that if the scenario under Two above occurred, and worked, I would still call it a failure under definition two and a success under definition one.
And honestly, definition two is the more interesting one to try to produce a solution for.
"potentially more effective ways of rescuing kidnapped children"
Agree.
Better than nothing? Ok, yes. Better than a company giving people an opportunity to monetize their 404 traffic (people do this obviously) and then taking those earnings (even if nominal) and putting it toward a cause to help children (or anything "worthy") even better.
