A Few Simple Questions

[David Sklansky]

Is it OK to kill 100 random people to save the lives of 1000 random people?

Its not ok, but if you're talking about diverting a bomb its not ok to do nothing either.

Sometimes you have to do things that aren't ok. The big danger comes when you begin to persuade youself that its ok. Do what you have to do but recognise it was a terrible thing.

chez


Best.

PairTheBoard

I don't disagree at all. I used the word OK to mean acceptable. Meanwhile I wonder why your words "Do what you have to do but recognise it was a terrible thing" aren't used more often by abortion proponents.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolute randomness must be maintained for my answers to be irrefutable. So in the doctor example you would have to have a situation where six similar people in a room were told that five were about to die and one will live, unless they all voted to reverse it. Which they would of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

its only irrefutable if you have some desire to maximise human lives saved. getting dieing people to vote doesn't change anything about the right/wrong of the situation.


chez

[David Sklansky]

Yes. The assumption is that it is better if fewer people die, barring any other knowledge about the situation. Warren Whitmore doesn't agree so to him the questions are pointless.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. The assumption is that it is better if fewer people die, barring any other knowledge about the situation. Warren Whitmore doesn't agree so to him the questions are pointless.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we do know something about this situation. There is a doctor-patient relationship which shouldn't allow the doctor to make decision for the patient. If the patient was offered the choice of whether to die to save 5 others that might be different.

I believe the doctor making the decision for the patient is significantly worse than allowing the other 5 to die.

chez

[m1illion]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it OK to kill 100 random people to save the lives of 1000 random people?

[/ QUOTE ] No
[ QUOTE ]
What about if to save the 1000 lives it was necessary to pick the 100 randomly from a specific group such as Jews or blacks or the residents of Manchester?

[/ QUOTE ]No
[ QUOTE ]
What about if the killing of 100 results in only a 30% chance of saving 1000?

[/ QUOTE ]No


I will never get this minute back.

[ QUOTE ]
i really dont see how you think it is a stupid question
it really made me think
hey, if you think its stupid i suppose your entitled to your own oppinion , but a newbie telling d.s. that his post was stupid just doesnt sound right to me
but even some one like pairtheboard or notready dont just tell him it was a stupid post they tell him why they thought that and if your just going to go arould telling people that their posts are stupid you better tell them why

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is stupid because is presupposes a power that could morally justify any of the named actions. No such power can be morally justified.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that the current government (regime) ought to be overthrown because of the actions of a different government over half a century ago?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. I think it's noble that a country stands up for itself, drops bombs, etc. when it feels it has to protect national interests. But when you do, don't pretend the lives you just exterminated are of any non-negligible value compared to those of your own kind. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy in those supporters of such a regime, past and present, who make statements claiming all human lives have more or less equal value to them.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it is a contradiction to say that one values all human life, while at the same time making choices that may not have a net beneficial effect on humanity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then let me add the words "more or less equally" to the claim of valuing all human life (a claim many still make). Now there is hypocrisy because just 1% of the US GDP, not just in dollars but in manpower, would not only save millions of African lives but would start various programs to make a lasting, long-term difference. I agree just keeping them alive doesn't help them long term, but with those kinds of resources available there has to be a way to do something truly beneficial, saving lives all the while.

The reason that the 1% doesn't go to Africa but rather to support domestic causes (relative luxury items compared to the basic needs of Africa) is that Americans care more about other Americans than they do about Africans. Much, much more. And that's the way it should be IMO, just minus the hypocritical BS.

[ QUOTE ]
Which dude is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's me. Some pretty nasty stuff was said in response to my post, such as "I also have a special category 7 for Nazis and xenophobes who I'd like to reduce into a fine pate and feed to pigs.", from page 1 of this thread.

Again, my point here is not that I'm offended, but rather just pointing out the stark contrast in the extreme emotional reaction to something relatively mild vs. some seriously nasty stuff being tacitly approved by the same people.

[Kripke]

You are making a very basic mistake in your reasoning David. When we are trying to establish what is morally correct or ethically sound, we can only rely on moral or ethical intuitions. That is precisely the point I'm trying to make. While it may seem morally correct, intuitively, to kill 100 people in order to save 1000 people or as in the case I gave, 1 person for the rest of the world, it seems equally counter-intuitive that it is morally permissible for the doctor to kill an innocent patient coming in for a routine check.

What is the flaw in the theory then? The flaw is that we start with some basic assumptions about what is morally permissible based on intuitions regarding morality. We then substract from that intuition the key premise in our theory, say 'in order to act morally correct, maximizing overall welfare is the number one priority (or maximixing the number of lives saved etc.) This then results in legitimizing actions which intuitively seem clearly morally incorrect. So, now there is a problem. We want a moral theory that adheres to basic moral intuitions, but it seems that our intuitions are in conflict. This seems to indicate that there is something wrong with the basic premises we substract from our initial intuition.

Likewise had your starting point been 'Is it ok for a doctor to kill an innocent patient coming in for a routine check in order to save two other patients?', most people would have replied 'no, it is not ok'. Now, if the 'random stipulations were strictly held to', we would have to conclude that it is not ok to kill one innocent person even if that is the only possible way to save the rest of the world's population.

This problem have been discussed excessively in the philosophical literature. Moore's open question argument is a clear explanation and argument as to why this randomness results in defect moral theories. There has been written a countless number of articles regarding this argument which you might find interesting.

- Kripke

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
You value more the lives of conservative Jews than the lives of liberal Aryans ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not, yes. Political ideology is a more important consideration than race in my book, even though I'm the resident "racist" by the consensus here.

The way I see it: Liberalism threatens us all (all conservatives I mean) and since the threat is global, we must co-operate if we want to defeat it. Once that's done we can worry about duking it out amongst ourselves but not until then.

Your current conservative government is slowly realizing that the enemy within (liberals) is more powerful and a bigger threat than external conservative enemies (Iraq, Iran, Al Qa'ida, etc.). If they don't wake up soon your country will eventually implode on itself and the conservative regime with the most cohesion and least liberal baggage will take over the world. (Expected timeline = a few decades).

I expect to be told I belong in the nuthouse now, but that's ok...after being minced and fed to pigs I think I can handle that one. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[David Sklansky]

"it seems equally counter-intuitive that it is morally permissible for the doctor to kill an innocent patient coming in for a routine check."

But the situations aren't analogous. Here's how you could make them analogous. First assume a world where everyone knows that 5x people will develop a fatal disease, totally at random, while x people will develop immunity to it that will save the 5x if they are killed. If you go to your doctor you will either be irrelevant, have the disease and be treated, or will be painlessly killed. If you don't go you will die tomorrow if you have it. Wouldn't most people think a law that forces everyone to go today is a moral one?