The Value of Human Life (a poll for BigSooner)

[PokerAmateur4]

[ QUOTE ]


I suppose you'd make the decision to allow your child to die a horrible death? Or are you one of those sob artists who just likes to wax poetically about morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sat shoots, he scores!

"If this is an accurate representation of people's feelings, then it certainly illustrates the moral decline that seems to be accelerating of late. I've always said that man's biggest deficiency is selfishness and this certainly reflects that. "

BSF are you for real? How have you been monitoring and analyzing the accelearation rate of society's morality over time? What criterion do you set for something being moral? It is moral when you say it is?

As for why I am sure you are a hypocrite, how much of your money goes towards starving children? I'm guessing but I don't think it would cost more than $300 to save 10 african children's lives for a year.
What was the last thing which you purchased? How much did that cost, in dollars or in the length of time it could of sustained an impoverished child. Finally why was that purchase a more moral use of your resources then someone's life?

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically, it took you more characters to announce that you don't have time to ridicule me than I used in my latest jab.

[/ QUOTE ]

I took a little extra time.

Straight from the presses, from Business Week Online:

Top 10 Most Generous Philanthropists
1. Gordon and Betty Moore
2. Bill and Melinda Gats
3. Warren Buffett
4. George Soros
5. Eli and Edythe Broad
6. James and Virginia Stowers
7. The Walton Family
8. Alfren Mann
9. Michael and Susan Dell
10. Bigsoonerfan

Least Generous Philanthropists
6,523,563,222 OJ Simpson
6,524,563,223 David Duke
6,524,563,224 Harry Karavan

[hmkpoker]

So I guess as the 6,524,563,224th least generous philanthropist, I'm somewhere near the top [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[DcifrThs]

jeez, you pro lifers [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

seriously though. this poll has to do with the UTILITY of human life to the poll taker, not the VALUE of human life in general. so the utility of this most polltakers' loved ones is higher than that of the utility of 10 african children living.

change the poll to include one fewer person, but make the other 9 the supreme court justices and see what happens.

Barron

[sweetjazz]

Barron,

Despite the title of the thread, your observation that the discussion has centered on utility is spot on.

However, the poll is complicated because it asks what action would one take, and that action depends heavily, if not entirely, on which you consider more important in making a decision like this -- the value of human life or the utility of the specific human lives in question.

I am very surprised that so many people feel that it is okay to base the decision on the utility of the specific human lives involved, and that they argue it is morally acceptable to do so (or, at least, that they cannot be fairly criticized for acting immorally).

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I am very surprised that so many people feel that it is okay to base the decision on the utility of the specific human lives involved, and that they argue it is morally acceptable to do so

[/ QUOTE ]

I throw out morality. It's meaningless. Why should I care about what's "moral" when lives are at stake? There's a little more critical thinking necessary here beyond dogmatic morality.

[ QUOTE ]
(or, at least, that they cannot be fairly criticized for acting immorally).

[/ QUOTE ]

Life's not fair. Criticize me all you want. I don't care because there are more important issues at hand.