Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

[Kilroy_x]

Sacrificing one for the good of many is weighing life. Letting nature take its course also isn't equivalent to making a sacrifice.

[devonin]

Let's just assume we had our big hooplah over how I think choosing inaction is an action, and how you disagree because you feel that your choosing inaction has no result outside yourself, and carry on as though we'd done our inevitable agreement to disagree.

-IF- someone decides to weigh lives, I assume at this stage we should all agree that the girl loses out, no matter how cute she is, even if she has one of those big lollipops and is crying, to 200 people who will, if nothing else, have "several years" of perfectly healthy life.

I'd say "Which brings us to the question, ought we to weigh life" but for this thread, we are going in with a tacit demand that we must accept that we can and should, so that's outside the scope.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Let's just assume we had our big hooplah over how I think choosing inaction is an action, and how you disagree because you feel that your choosing inaction has no result outside yourself, and carry on as though we'd done our inevitable agreement to disagree.

I don't know why you would want to refuse to address the issue central to the discussion. I can only assume it's because you continue to be wrong.

-IF- someone decides to weigh lives, I assume at this stage we should all agree that the girl loses out, no matter how cute she is, even if she has one of those big lollipops and is crying, to 200 people who will, if nothing else, have "several years" of perfectly healthy life.

Not at all. All valuations are inherently arbitrary. If the person doing the valuations happens to weigh "has a vagina and a lolipop" significantly higher than whatever value they infer in the existence of the 200 men, they'll do so. That's precisely what makes weighing the value of human life wrong, it reduces the value seen in life to something arbitrary by necessity.

I'd say "Which brings us to the question, ought we to weigh life" but for this thread, we are going in with a tacit demand that we must accept that we can and should, so that's outside the scope.

Then the scope needs to be widened.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

I don't know why you would want to refuse to address the issue central to the discussion. I can only assume it's because you continue to be wrong.

You haven't proven me wrong to my satisfaction, and you have proven me wrong to your satisfaction. And vice versa. We are clearly coming up against deeply entrenched beliefs on the philosophy of mind, and the relation of the mind to the world. Fair enough. I continue to read, study and appreciate all kinds of philosophers that I think are full of ****, and still glean useful insights from them. Just because we both think the other one is wrong doesn't render 'agreeing to disagree' an invalid course just to keep discussions moving, interesting, and not constantly devolving into you and I posting page after page on a subject that is only lightly connected to the situation at hand.

Not at all. All valuations are inherently arbitrary. If the person doing the valuations happens to weigh "has a vagina and a lolipop" significantly higher than whatever value they infer in the existence of the 200 men, they'll do so. That's precisely what makes weighing the value of human life wrong, it reduces the value seen in life to something arbitrary by necessity.

I was supposing that, as the entire thought experiment is deisgned to illustrate, that most people's valuations would centre around opportunity to contribute to the world, rather than cuteness. I apologise if your'e a sucker for a lollipop.

Then the scope needs to be widened.

Go for it. I just think it is a topic that could warrant its own thread instead of being appended to this one.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

You haven't proven me wrong to my satisfaction, and you have proven me wrong to your satisfaction. And vice versa.

So seems the issue.

Just because we both think the other one is wrong doesn't render 'agreeing to disagree' an invalid course just to keep discussions moving, interesting, and not constantly devolving into you and I posting page after page on a subject that is only lightly connected to the situation at hand.

The subject is central. It's the question of whether or not it's ever moral to take action which will hurt others based on any valuation made of others. I'm less concerned about whether the discussion is moving or interesting as I am about whether the discussion perpetuates faulty thought or evolves, not devolves, into something more meaningful.

I was supposing that, as the entire thought experiment is deisgned to illustrate, that most people's valuations would centre around opportunity to contribute to the world, rather than cuteness. I apologise if your'e a sucker for a lollipop.

Yes, but that's precisely the issue. "opportunity to contribute to the world" is a concept based in the mind of each individual on their own arbitrary valuation of what constitutes "contribution". Some people would undoubtedly think cuteness contributes more to the world than 200 men with HIV, and while that might strike people with other more somberly types of valuations as something which is absurd, their values are ultimately no less arbitrary.

Go for it. I just think it is a topic that could warrant its own thread instead of being appended to this one.

I'd be fine with creating a separate thread for the discussion, but the discussion is still contextually appropriate to this thread.

[911840]

why must we assume that the little girl will grow up, have kids, and be and be a healthy member of society? for all we know she could whore around and do nothing but spread HIV...

my vote is that the girl dies...200 people would be connected to too many other people for it to be worth the risk...

[The_Q]

Originally Posted by I Forgot Who, Exactly, but They're On Page Two

In light of new information i think i would let the men live because while you cant weight the amount of a life to another one, you can definitely sacrifice one for the good of many.

The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that not only can you weigh lives against each other but to teach you how. I took the road of "which would cause the greatest benefit to the individuals involved?," which is typically the correct question to ask. When abstract concepts such as "the whole" and "the people" get involved, the answer tends to become obscure. When you think of the benefit received by each individual and add that up, you can get something entirely different from what is good for "the whole" (see Leaf-Blowers).

Also, the argument that the 200 men would be more of a burden on the health care system is simply irrelevant. If we assume a lack of universal health care (as it should be), then there is no burden except to the individual or the insurance company. In either case, health care is taken care of or adjusted based on demand, not resources. Resources will be produced and allocated properly based on how they sell. Involving bureaucracy and government only worsens the situation (see waiting lists for Canadian health care). If anything, by living the men benefit their hometowns by allocating more HIV resources to where they might be needed.

Q

[devonin]

Actaully, as an aside, the -actual- point of the exercise was to point out

"Solving these problems through the Pleasure Calculus is inherantly impossible because the sheer amount of variables you would have to consider to reach your decision would take so much time that you would constantly be paralysed into inaction, never being able to carry through a decision to pull the lever or not pull the lever, because by the time you've decided which you should do, it is too late."