Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Not Ready. (Who would have thunk it?) That John Cole also agrees makes me feel better about it. We could all do more but don't because we choose not to. It's easier because we don't actually see the children suffering.

The movie The Constant Gardener addresses this point quite well, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that as well but its not because its better than the other two choice (which is implied by the question).

Its a good thing to do in its own right.

chez

Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

You should nitpick more carefully. The areas in my reply which you highlight were both sarcastic.

Let me be clear. Button three is the most obviously moral choice. Non-participation is significantly less moral. And it is decidedly immoral if we assume that refusal to participate will not influence the government policy. For the sake of the question, I make that assumption.

The main reason that it's easy to become a "desk murderer" is disassociation of one's actions and their consequences. David's scenario does a nice job of removing the desk, and because of this, I doubt that even very greedy people would fail to choose button three (at least not on day one). Some might pass the buck, but only a very few would take the cash.

Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Given the choice between 1 child dying a painful death or 5 dying painless deaths, surely the former is the better option?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not certain I agree with this, but my response was not to be taken too seriously anyway. Your question, however, does get at the most provocative aspect of this scenario.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe it would be ethical to kill 1 in every 34.3 kids and break even.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a personal maxim or a plot?

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. All this talk about governments and passing the buck is way off topic. The fact that the system might not actually work is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad someone else agrees.

Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

So, the moral authority here is the “government of all wealthy countries”. We have free will: “participation is not mandatory.”

1) +$500 I assume kid dies painfully.
2) +100 and kid has no pain in dying.
3) -$15 and kid is spared.
4) Do nothing


How big is my bankroll? How many -$15 do I have?
What happens if I do nothing and all the alternates do nothing, too? How many alternates are in the pool of button pushers.
How many dying kids are on death row? If the kid is spared does Big Government go on to the next kid?

Under this scenario, is there an afterlife or is death finality?

Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

i'm assuming you only want people who adhere to moral codes to be involved in these posts, correct?

Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
You should nitpick more carefully. The areas in my reply which you highlight were both sarcastic.

[/ QUOTE ]

And without use of emoticons how can one deduce sarcasm from mere text, which via this medium can only be taken subjectively?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

Let me be clear. Button three is the most obviously moral choice. Non-participation is significantly less moral. And it is decidedly immoral if we assume that refusal to participate will not influence the government policy. For the sake of the question, I make that assumption.

The main reason that it's easy to become a "desk murderer" is disassociation of one's actions and their consequences. David's scenario does a nice job of removing the desk, and because of this, I doubt that even very greedy people would fail to choose button three (at least not on day one). Some might pass the buck, but only a very few would take the cash.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rich people didn't become rich by willingly allowing $450-465 to leak out of their accounts at the end of the month, and while I doubt any rich person who isn't having a bad day or a sociopath would take option 1, option 2 is +EV and from a realist perspective and would be the most worn out button if "buck-passing" was eliminated.

This scenario is naive because it assumes that the current situation may be different if rich people had to actively press a button instead of sub-contracting their 'questionable' exploits while they distract themselves playing Tennis with other distracted exploiters.

The whole fact that life is in your hands only reaffirms how unfair life is, and that it's better to be pushing the button and making decisions than to be impoverished - but have a clear conscience, and be at the mercy of a button pusher.

I'm just sick of the neverending "Atheist club vs Theist club merry-go-round" threads and the only alternatives offered by David which are about dogs and African kids. With all the supposed great minds in SMP, why are we even replying to these weak scenarios?

Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

"How many dying kids are on death row? If the kid is spared does Big Government go on to the next kid?"

If you can use $15 to save one, isn't that a good thing? There are very few of us who do all we can. And we don't because we don't want to. It's easy because we don't see all the kids on death row.

Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

"The main reason that it's easy to become a "desk murderer" is disassociation of one's actions and their consequences. David's scenario does a nice job of removing the desk, and because of this, I doubt that even very greedy people would fail to choose button three (at least not on day one). Some might pass the buck, but only a very few would take the cash."

Just so. In the real world, we all take the cash every day.