Why are More Deaths Worse Than One? (Against Taurek)
Hello all,
I am looking for some strategies to appeal to why multiple deaths are worse than one (specifically in the realm of Taurek cases). I am hoping to find methods to make this claim that do a little more than just repeat consequentialist beliefs.
To briefly summarize Taurek:
John Taurek proves to be a number sceptic in his paper, “Should the Numbers Count?” His ultimate conclusion being that in trade-off situations, the relative number of people involved is not something of significance in moral decision making. Rather, Taurek believes that each individual in a trade-off situation deserves equal consideration and that their chances of survival should each be maximized. This leads to his controversial claim that we ought to flip a coin in these scenarios.
His famous example of a trade-off scenario:
You are distributing a lifesaving drug. Six individuals all need the drug to survive. Five of them each only require one-fifth of the drug for survival, while the sixth individual requires the entire dosage. You are then faced with the choice between saving the five or the one. Thus, with either path of action, a trade-off is involved.
Looking at his Argument as Laid out by Parfit in "Immumerate Ethics":
(P1) Without special obligations, the only moral reason to prevent a certain moral outcome is that it is worse than its alternative.
(P2) The deaths of the five would not be worse than the death of the one.
(c) Therefore, we have no moral obligation to save the five rather than the one.
I am looking for insight into proving the implausibility of P2.
Additionally, I do believe in the importance of the separateness of persons...I think Taurek is on the right track here. That being said, while primary importance may go to the loss-to-persons, it seems implausible that the loss-of-persons carries no weight...
If anyone has any useful readings or ideas please respond! I am curious what people think on this topic!
I am looking for some strategies to appeal to why multiple deaths are worse than one (specifically in the realm of Taurek cases). I am hoping to find methods to make this claim that do a little more than just repeat consequentialist beliefs.
To briefly summarize Taurek:
John Taurek proves to be a number sceptic in his paper, “Should the Numbers Count?” His ultimate conclusion being that in trade-off situations, the relative number of people involved is not something of significance in moral decision making. Rather, Taurek believes that each individual in a trade-off situation deserves equal consideration and that their chances of survival should each be maximized. This leads to his controversial claim that we ought to flip a coin in these scenarios.
His famous example of a trade-off scenario:
You are distributing a lifesaving drug. Six individuals all need the drug to survive. Five of them each only require one-fifth of the drug for survival, while the sixth individual requires the entire dosage. You are then faced with the choice between saving the five or the one. Thus, with either path of action, a trade-off is involved.
Looking at his Argument as Laid out by Parfit in "Immumerate Ethics":
(P1) Without special obligations, the only moral reason to prevent a certain moral outcome is that it is worse than its alternative.
(P2) The deaths of the five would not be worse than the death of the one.
(c) Therefore, we have no moral obligation to save the five rather than the one.
I am looking for insight into proving the implausibility of P2.
Additionally, I do believe in the importance of the separateness of persons...I think Taurek is on the right track here. That being said, while primary importance may go to the loss-to-persons, it seems implausible that the loss-of-persons carries no weight...
If anyone has any useful readings or ideas please respond! I am curious what people think on this topic!
Comments (82)
First, I would agree that number shouldn't be the overriding motivation to act or decide on a particular ethical event. But, there's a bit to explain here about using number as factor in decision. The runaway train moral dilemma (you can google this for the entire story) has an element of sacrificing one person to save multiple people. That train problem is easier for me to decide. My decision for it is to not intervene if it means sacrificing an innocent bystander who isn't even on the path where the train is going. Many people would think of this as saving one person by killing 5 people. I disagree that this is how we should look at it. But I won't elaborate too much as this is not what you're asking.
Anyway, back to your problem. The numbers game in your scenario is not the same as the runaway train. In your scenario, it's the scarcity of the drug that's controlling the situation. So, in this case, I would not toss a coin, and I would further argue that Taurek is wrong in using number to equalize the situation. Because the issue is scarcity of the drug, I would use the desert factor. If we're going to deny the 5 individuals the pill, does the one individual deserve to have it? Do they have families? Children? Do they have obligations in life that make them irreplaceable, so to speak? So, if the one individual requiring an entire dose is a criminal, a single individual, or a young person with no other obligation, I would seriously think the other five could have the pill. And likewise, I would examine the 5 individuals who only require one fifth dose.
Interesting stuff, eh?
The same goes for other world leaders, single individuals for whom the entire nation is sacrificed if it comes to that!
Just sayin'...
Why are you saving their lives in the first place? Six people will die without external life support in the form of this drug, therefore, rather than say you are denying life to someone regardless of the choice you make, reframe it to consider: why are you interrupting the otherwise natural progression of these people's lives by unnaturally denying their deaths? Perhaps it is more unethical to deny these deaths than to simply walk away and allow nature to progress.
That and, regardless of the drug, no deaths are being avoided. They are being delayed at best.
I would order my 1001th nation army to fight until death so I could reach you alive, Agent Smith, my dear love! :hearts:
On a societal level the consequences of saving or loosing five lives is greater than saving or loosing one. Although things might be different if the contribution of one person greatly outweighs that of the others.
At the root of the problem is the conflict between individualism and the common good. That is not a conflict we can resolve, but how one answers the question of who gets the drug may depending on where one stands on individualism.
Isn't the answer straight-forward and obvious? Isn't it clear that five deaths are worse than one death? It has nothing to do with weighing one person's life against other's. What if it were 10 to 1. 100 to 1. 10,000 to 1. There's a line somewhere when it becomes silly to argue it doesn't matter. I don't think there should be any moral quandary with 5 to 1 - five deaths is worse than one.
Another question - Where would I draw the line if the one person in question was my daughter?
Welcome to the forum.
You would let a million die to dont let her die, wontya?
In this case it does. The cause of the situation is the scarcity of the drug. I wouldn't save a criminal's life. I'd give it to who is more deserving.
In fact, aren't we doing it now? Those who receive a transplant must pass the "good candidate" test for receiving the organ. Meaning, the person must be suited for the transplant.
Quoting Camille
I think that the word "strategies" is too much of a requirement for this case. I would rather use the term "thesis" or even just "argument". The immediate answer is "Because the damage is larger". This is evident, if ethics is defined as "doing the major good for the greatest number". Then the opposite would be "doing the major harm to the major number". Isn't this enough for your appeal?
There are millions of realistic and striking examples one can offer for the above thesis/argument, which don't leave the least doubt for its validity. A single of them is just enough:
Would it be the same if Nazis had killed a single Jewish person instead of millions?
I find then difficult to believe that any thinking mind --Taurek or other-- can come to a conclusion such as that "the relative number of people involved is not something of significance in moral decision making" ...
Nevertheless, let's see what are the arguments here ... Saying that "each individual in a trade-off situation deserves equal consideration and that their chances of survival should each be maximized" can stand as an argument only on the basis that there must not be a discrimination between individuals, in general. But, as a general argument, it cannot always stand. One cannot always maximize the chances all the individuals --involved in case-- at the same time.
Doctors often have to solve such dilemmas. For example, when they have to save a not-yet-born-baby from its mother's womb by an immediate C-section, when the mother is supposed to die anyway. There are a lot of Covid care cases, where doctors must let an old man or a fatally sick person die and give a single oxygen mask they have at their disposition to a young and more healthy person.
As far as "numbers" are concerned ... We have a lot of examples in life where one or more individuals sacrifice themselves to save other people, larger in number or who have not the same means of saving themselves as they do. Professional people is the first thing that comes to mind: firemen, soldiers, lifeguards, ... But also any individual who puts his/herself at risk to save others.
Number counts!
(I hope this serves your purpose. I wrote much more than what is required. I just tried to inspire you! :smile: The first paragraph is enough, for me at least.)
My brother had a kidney transplant about five years ago when he was 67. Before the doctors would allow the operation to proceed, he had to meet health requirements, including losing a lot of weight. There are a limited number of organs for transplant. They want to make sure they go to people who will benefit from them. Makes sense to me.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Utilitarianism isn't always good because it stunts our moral judgment. The trolley (runaway train) problem is one. I refuse to sacrifice anyone just so a few could live. That's not moral reasoning. And no, ethics is not defined as that. It's Bentham's theory.
What does "not always good" mean? Can one apply a different theory, system, view of morality to different cases or decide about a moral action based on different theories, systems or views of morality?
And why "does it stunt our moral judgment"? Isn't or shouldn't moral judgenent be based on certain moral principles? The definition of ethics that I presented, which is what I believe and works for me --you can call it "Utilitarianian ethics" if you like, but that contains much more than what I can personally "hold"-- is based on rational thinking. How can this stunt our judgement, moral or any other kind?
What does stunt your moral judgement is believing in and act based on "The Ten Commandments" and whatever other given set of moral values.
Aren't that all people who need a new kidney?
Not always good means that it doesn't work as one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues. Your complete agreement with "greatest number" could be rejected based on specific situations. Ethics and morality are more complex than what the greatest good theory presents. For one thing, whatever it is to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people is essentially a consequentialist attitude. So long as we're achieving the end goal of greatest number of people, it's okay to make some people morally dissatisfied. I gave the example of the runaway train to express my objection to this kind of thinking: saving a greater number of people at the expense of one individual is morally reprehensible.
We're not locked in to any one moral systems. Adjustments and deliberations should always be included in our moral decisions.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I won't object to your calling it rational thinking -- but I also reserve the right to call other moral systems rational. So where does that leave utilitarianism? They're all can be rational thinking.
Whenever you have only one measure to evaluate how moral your system is -- and that measure is the "greatest number of people" --it suppresses other reasoning that doesn't satisfy this one requirement. That's why I call it stunted moral reasoning.
However as it applies to political philosophy, we do feel we have some ability to control mass suffering by taking it unto ourselves or placing it on somebody else capable of containing the suffering.
I see. It's not good at all, then. It's useless. Because you can't use it sometimes only, as I said. Right?
OK. I can accept that. There are a lot of persons who refute ethics based "major good for the greatest number" (the so-called "Utilitarian" ethics or whatever). Well, that's why there exist various ethics theories and systems. What's yours? What system, according to you can work as a one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues?
Quoting L'éléphant
Do you mean cases like the "runaway train" case? Regarding that, you find "saving a greater number of people at the expense of one individual morally reprehensible". And that your "decision for it is to not intervene if it means sacrificing an innocent bystander who isn't even on the path where the train is going". Right?
OK, but have you read my examples? What if a number of people have no chances to survive, e.g. in a fire, a tempestuous sea, etc., and nothing is done? Shouldn't a fireman, lifeguard etc. who have chances to survive try to save some if not all of them, at a risk of their own lives?
A more local case: The war in Ukraine. Should the citizens try only to escape or hide, doing nothing to defend their cities and deliver them to the Russians? What about the millions who cannot escape and stay there to receive the Russian gunfire and bombs? This is not what is happening, is it? A few able citizens take their gun to fight the Russians at their cost of their lives and in order to save their city and their compatriots. (I don't mention the Ukrainian Army and soldiers, because it is their job to fight.)
Sorry, but I cannot accept staying idle in such situation as a moral solution. I cannot accept your "runaway train" attitude as moral. Besides, it's not enough to form an ethical theory or system by itself. So, to which ethical theory or system does it belong?
Sacrificing your own life to save others is a totally different moral position. Why? Because you are giving consent to your own involvement, even it it means death. The runaway train example, as I've already mentioned numerous times, has the element of sacrificing someone who does not give their permission to be sacrificed. They also did not cause the problem. (you know where we're going with this -- someone who caused the problem must answer to it morally, they have the moral culpability to be involved, if it means punishment).
And yes, we often, if not always, forget this one important element in moral evaluation -- consent.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
See above. If the citizens would like to participate in the combat, and not follow the international protocol for civilians affected by the war, then they are contributing to the detriment of war. I'm speaking in general, not just the Russia-Ukraine war. We have in place international laws on how civilians should be treated and how civilians behave when their country is at war. If some citizens decide on their own volition to sacrifice their lives and help the army/military and police, morally speaking they are acting on their own consent.
I agree on this. We can exclude self-sacrifice and cases of consent, although they certainly contain a moral choice.
But what about my examples with doctors' decisions?
BTW, I have googled the "runaway train" dillemma and the "Trolley problem" appeared instead. I believe this is what you mean. So, in that problem, there are 5 people tied up on the tracks. The dilemma is 1) do nothing, in which case 5 people will be killed or 2) pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill a person. Well, there can be a lot of variations on this basic scenario, but the present one is not so realistic. Anyway, if the driver does nothing, he will most probably be reprimanded for killing these 5 people instead of trying in any way to avoid it by diverting the trolley. And in the specific case, there would only be one victim (at least this is what is known as certain).
I believe that there have been a lot of real situations in life like this one, not only with big vehicles but also with cars. And, excluding the cases in which the driver cannot do anything or has no time to react anyway, and assuming that the driver has relatively good reflexes and conttol, i.e., he does not react randomly, uncontrollably or thoughtlessly, he will try to avoid major damage. This is only too evident. It has to do with survival.
The central element and purpose of ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" is survival: the purpose of life. Any kind of morality must have this as purpose. The opposite of this is "major harm". And it is what should be avoided, in the examples brought up in this discussion.
Not sure. Maybe he'll be reprimanded for not sticking to the scheme.
And as I have already said, herein lies the problem. I feel like answering in nuggets:
The end justifies the means -- we all know the horror that have been brought to our societies.
The road to hell is paved with good intention -- this too.
No, this is overstating the case. It is not possible to save a life, nor to give a life, it is only possible to take a life.
The people who do get the medication might recover, or they might not, this is not in our hands. It is also not in our hands whether those who don't get the medication will die or not.
What is in our hands is the decision as to whether to kill or not.
Zombies are alive, technically.
What scheme?
Yes, Frankenstein's monster too.
Do you see maybe too many horror and fantasy movies?
The trolly scheme to collect travelers down the rail. Trollybus company bosses can be difficult... what if the driver knew he would loose his job?
That's the reason why Buddhist monks have to literally turn their backs on friends and family, the preferred mindset for a bodhisattva can be reduced to this equation: friend = foe! Good luck with that!
Mulgere hircum! Non sono mica Mandrake!
I see that you keep critisizing or findng inadequate etchics based on "major good for the greatest number". That "it doesn't work as one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues", etc. OK. But you have still not answered my question: "What system, according to you can work as a one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues?"
In Buddhism, a bodhisattva (/?bo?di??s?tv?/ BOH-dee-SUT-v?; Sanskrit: ??????????, Pali: ????????) is any person who is on the path towards Buddhahood.
The Buddhahood of Man! Kill yourself to save the millions. Kill the millions to save yourself? Killemall? The eternal search for the supreme ethics. Eliminating the bad can be considered good but is it? Is a bad-free world of divine being preferable to a bad-loathed realm of sodogammoric torturing?
If nobody falls ill, doctors would be unemployed! :lol:
:lol:
Yes, they would. Would they truly wish everyone healthy? Would they sacrifice themselves for global health? Would they take the bullet?
The Codex Alimentarius will take care of their jobs... "All fall down, all fall down. Codex Alimentarius."
"Damned nurse Jetty, no customers today?"
"The more business for us, doctor Bonkers!"
"Nurse Jetty!"
"Doctor!"
Not easy!
Here's a riddle.
I hit P hard with a wooden plank and, in an unrelated event, save Q from certain death. I get charged for assault and am given a citation for bravery.
Now, imagine I hit R hard with a wooden plank on his back to disconnect R from a live wire which is electrocuting him, saving R in the process. There are no assault charges filed against me, but I do get my citation.
I see, you mean the program, the regular plan that the driver should follow.
Well, does this include what you should do when you are approaching persons tied on the trolley rails?
Accident cases are judged based on the circumstances, whether the person who has provoked an accident acted correctly or wrongly according not only to rules pertinent to the job or the activity he was carrying out, but also on moral issues. There are a lot of cases where people have violated the rules pertaining to their jobs to save peoples' lives, they are finally judged to act correctly and they have been declared innocent. And as far as I can remember, the decision was always based on "major good for the greatest number". Why? Because this is the only rational way to see ethics.
Certainly.
(BTW, this is the phrase that @L'éléphant used referring to the inadequacy of etchics based on "major good for the greatest number".)
Quoting Agent Smith
Of course. You have acted based on "major good". This is exactly what I have mentioned a while ago to @EugeneW, bringing up court cases.
Can the commandment Thou shalt not kill be rephrased, salva veritate, as Thou shalt save.
God's plan? How does not killing fit into it while saving not?
I have improved my Latin (and philosophical terminology) by looking up "salve veritate". Thanks! :smile:
The above two statements are quite different for me. First, because one requires from someone to avoid, refrain from doing something (no action), while the other one requires from someone to do something (action). No action is basically --but not always-- much easier than action. Also, while it is a moral and applauded action to save a life, you cannot require that from someone.
BTW, I'm totally against "The Ten Commandments" or any "preset" moral codes or dogmas as a basis for morality. Or for whatever else in that matter. I have already mentioned in this thread that they impair moral judgement, and thus judgement in general.
Quoting Agent Smith
They actually both fit in. But not if you rely on "The Ten Commandments".
I don't quite get the descriptor "preset". Anyway, here's the deal. if you don't quite like the idea of a code, you're really rejecting all of ethics, ethics being a system of laws/injunctions/rules (codes).
In short what's the alternative?
Quoting Alkis Piskas
How? Explain, please. If God wills your death, how does saving you square with God's plan?
Prepared in advance. (The term "preset" is mainly used in music, but I like it! ). Maybe the word "predefined" is more appropiate. What I mean is a laid down list --formulated methodically-- of things to do or not to do. (The word "list" is used loosely here, of course. But "The Ten Commandments" is actually such a list.)
Quoting Agent Smith
I'm not sure about that. Codes can be a lot of things. They are usually any kind of symbols (words, images) used to represent other things, a systematic collection of laws or pronciples, etc. In this case, it's a set of conventions or moral principles governing behaviour in a particular situation.
Not every system of ethics --in fact only a few, I guess-- include such codes.
Ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" do not include any kind of codes. And, while one can argue about it, even reject it on a personal basis, it can certainly not be rejected as a system, in general. That would be just absurd.
But I can see what is the problem here: There's too much theoretical talking and very little thinking about what is actually happening in life. But this is not the only time. Far from it. This happens too often, unfortunately.
I have given a lot of examples concening ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" --as I always try to do for any subject, when needed-- but I feel that they are just ignored. They are not even examined. At least not really, as situations in life, not as words.
Quoting Agent Smith
I trust your goodwill @Agent Smith. Really. But I can't believe that you are asking this after so many times that I presented my position on the subject of ethics. In fact, no one came to me with his/her position! So your question sounds quite ironic, doen't it. (No offense.)
Quoting Agent Smith
What if I don't believe in your God or to any God? Does that make me immoral?
See --I mean, I believe you see-- what happens when we put restrictions to and/or conditions on morality?
No, no I meant how does a moral code being preset diminish or invalidate the moral code that is (preset)?
Quoting Alkis Piskas
You mean to say major good for the greatest number is NOT a code. It looks like a code e.g. the code don't lie or don't kill.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Sorry, it must've slipped under my radar. The forum is a bustling cyberpolis with multiple active threads, hard to keep track of all the posters and their pet theories. I hope you understand my situation. Would appreciate it if you could.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
That's a different kettle of fish.
The "greatest number" is easily measured. But what is the "greatest good"? Doesn't this beg the question?
If you don't save you don't kill.
Do you mean if a moral code can never diminish/invalidate the morality of an action and that it shows what is always the right thing to do for a certain situation? Well, let's take one of the most commonly discussed principle of "The Ten Commandments" , "You shall not kill". This can be very easily "broken" without diminishing morality, by just considering the case of killing to defend oneself. This is cosidered a justified action, which is not punished by courts or the society. So, what is actually invalidated here is the commandment itself. It is proven useless in this case. It proves that you cannot always act based on a predefined rule.
Quoting Agent Smith
Right. It's not a code. It's more even than a principle. It's the foundation on which ethics and etchical behaviour are built. A code is addressed to a particular situation or a kind of situations. A foundation is independed of and covers any situation.
Quoting Agent Smith
:smile: I certainly do. Thank you for coming back to that.
Quoting Agent Smith
Well, it's quite big a kettle though, isn't it? :grin:
Actually, not even the "greatest number" is always easily to judge. It is not based so much on numbers as to areas of larger magnitude and importance. These are like concentric spheres, one inside the other, whith the individual in the center. But of course, the number always matters.
One of the best descriptions of this morality is given by Montesquieu, who was not even referring to morality!
(Free translation)
"If I knew something that was useful to me and was detrimental to my family, I would reject it from my mind. If I knew something was useful to my family and not in my homeland, I would try to forget it. If I knew something was useful to my country but prejudicial to Europe, or which was useful to Europe and prejudicial to the human race, I would consider it a crime." ("My thoughts, 11 - Thought 741")
Quoting EugeneW
This is mostly were reasoning and judgment come in. It's not always easy to tell. It's not an absolute. It's
subjective. I must act based on what I consider, I really believe is the correct thing to do. And I have to take certainly into consideration also "the greatest number", the other "spheres", outside me. "Major good" and "greatest number" are inseparable.
I could condense the "major good for the greatest number" foundation into simply "major good".
It could maybe easier to think of this by considering its opposite, as in our example in this thread of the "Trolley problem": "Avoid major damage". (This is not a commandement! :smile:)
How about the constructivist approach to ethics? In this system, we have multiple moral principles that get continuously evaluated based on events and the agents involved. This system would use pluralism (not relativism) and rationality (deliberation and choices) as its main method of arriving at the proper course of action. It could also use some universality, a la Ralwsian contract theory, and it could incorporate some Kant's categorical imperative (some), and finally it considers human nature (self-interest) when coming up with moral solutions.
Note that we aren't after the "greatest happiness" (whatever this is), rather we want equilibrium: we might not be the "happiest", but at least we don't trample on some individuals so that a greater number could be satisfied.
Empty phrase that needs work.
At the risk of actually addressing the OP, here is the paper: Should the numbers count?
At issue is the justification for (P2). Taurek encourages us to consider more complex, and hence more realistic, situations than the absurdly, indeed annoyingly simple perversion of the trolly problem so beloved of adolescent philosophers.
Thank you for drawing my attention to this paper. It presents a series of arguments that seem to me to show, yet again, the ineffectiveness of moral "laws"; no sooner are they espoused than competing counterexamples are presented. Ethics cannot be algorithmic. That's the poverty of both consequentialism and deontology.
Numerous compelling examples are given in the paper. It's well worth a read.
Welcome to the forum. You have arrived at a low point in the contributors here, which is why the quality of responses has been so poor. No one even bothered to find out what Taurek's argument was. That is poor. Embarrassingly so, for the forum.
This has also been fashionable to say here in the forum. I wonder why? For those who disagree with other views, their counter is that the contributions here have been so poor in quality.
I won't go this low. Everyone, there are good and bad posts in any history of forum community. Do not believe the hype.
Help me then!
God said "don't kill" (people, animals, perhaps even plants).
He never said "save" (people, animals, or plants).
If God's plan is real, we're not supposed to interfere with it, oui?
How is not killing part of the plan while saving isn't?
Naturalists doing field work follow a principle: Don't interfere with nature, if you see a pack of wild dogs disemboweling a deer and eating it alive don't try to save the deer from such a horrible fate. However do ensure that you don't go hunting for deer yourself. Thou shalt not kill! However, that doesn't mean Thou shalt save!
There's a thread on just war, does it exist/not.
In a confrontational/threatening situation, there are 3 options:
1. Fight (to the death)
2. Flight (run for your life)
3. Freeze (die)
Killing in self-defense is 1. What about 2 and 3? Some animals are known to roll over and play dead (possums); I, however, can't tell you how successful the possum strategy is. Reminds me of a war movie in which soldiers bayonet enemy soldiers lying on the ground, you know, to make sure they're really dead!
A digression perhaps, but it seems vital to study all possible responses nature, in her wisdom, has endowed us with.
The bottom line - it isn't necessary to kill (even in self-defense), you could just die! :chin:
Going by difficulty level, and doing/being good is no walk in the park, I'd say Freeze (just die, you a**hole!) hasta be the best a person can ever hope to be, ja? :grin:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
So, you're positing an ethics without a code? Suppose you say each individual ethical case needs to be examined separately because each is unique and that precludes mechanical application of moral injunctions. Isn't that a code?
That's all for now.
A thousand thanks for the link. What I'd do is not refute the thesis that numbers count; let's grant utilitarians that it is a mathematical calculation: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.
However, what if this one person you're willing to kill/sacrifice is going to find the cure for cancer or is Jesus, the savior? This one person is actually equivalent to the millions s/he'll save, oui? What now? Should I still kill/sacrifice this individual to save just 5 (trolley problem).
The future, mon ami, is shrouded in darkness; utilitarianism is predicated on being able to tell fortunes, not something any person, living or dead, has done till date. Yes attempts have been made, but the success rate = zip/nada/zilch/nix/sifr/zero!
Hoisted by his own petard!
Thank you for coming up with an alternative ethics scheme. I was craving for one! :grin:
Quoting L'éléphant
I tried to learn about "moral constructism" but I was kind of lost ... So I will stick to your description.
Quoting L'éléphant
It would be good to see one or two examples here of how this works ...
Quoting L'éléphant
OK, this is similar to or implied by the previous description.
Quoting L'éléphant
There. You lost me. I have no idea about Ralwsian's theory, not even Ralwsian himself. As for Kant's ethics, I have to refresh my memory --something which I have in mind to do anyway-- since it has passed a long time ...
Quoting L'éléphant
Interesting. How's that achieved? It would be good to see here too one or two examples here of how this works ...
Well, all this is OK, but it is too theoretical for me. I cannot put it in practice; in real life situations.
But it can satisfy others, of course. And it certainly enriches this thread!
Anyway, thank you again for responding to my call and offering an alternative ethical scheme.
Thank you for your coming back with all that!
I'll try to reciprocate! :smile:
Quoting Agent Smith
Yes, flies too do that. And then they are crashed! :grin:
So we can forget No. 3 because it's not a solution.
No. 2, escaping, can be a good solution. Only that it wouldn't be that dangerous a situation if one could just do that. But what if a soldier decides to do that in a battle? He will be punished as a deserter. And what if the enemy is a fire and you are a father who runs away out of the house to save your life, leaving your wife and children to die? Certainly, this would not considered moral, would it?
Therefore, in both of the above, and all the similar cases, the most morally accepted solution is No. 1. No one would condemn that. Instead, the opposite: it could be applauded.
Quoting Agent Smith
Right, it certainly isn't necessary. But the above example shows that in most cases, fighting is the generally accepted solution. Besides, aside from your situation you presented, in which death is certain, in real situations it is not always certain that someone will kiiled in the fight. So, by fighting you could save both lives. Or, by killing the aggressor, you may save other people's lives from being taken by the aggressor.
Quoting Agent Smith
Not exactly. I just said that "major good" is not a code, not that codes are not needed. Any entity --individual, family, group-- can and usually does have a code of ethical conduct, "silent" if not expressed orally or in writing, which pertains to specific subjects. Rights, for exemple, is between the most important and known one in a group or society. Also about racism, etc. A family can set or does have a code for children's behaviour, inside and outside the house. The couples also have commonly agreed codes of conduct for themselves. And you, as an individual, can set and do actually have a code of conduct for yourself regarding various subjects. Even if you have not laid it down expressedly or even be really aware of it, you don't want to break it!
Quoting Agent Smith
I wouldn't classify this as a "code". Maybe as a method or rule. It's too general.
A code is an agerement or moral principle based on which one must act or behave regarding a particular subject or area or sphere. So, since the statement "Each individual ethical case needs to be examined separately" is general, i.e. it does not refer to a particular subject, it cannot be considered a code.
The examples I mentioned above refer to specific subjects (right, racism, etc.), so they can be called codes.
Anyway, I wouldn't get stuck on codes, in general. They are supplementary to an ethics theory or system, which I think is the main issue in this latest part of the discussion.
I most humbly beg to differ. These responses have been documented in the animal world, aren't we too, animals? I for one see it as a viable option and I believe, if memory serves, I did respond by freezing up once upon a time. My life has never been the same and, odd as it seems, I'm thankful for it.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
No, no, he has a point!
However, I've, of late, given up trying to figure out what God's plan is. It's just too complex. Have you ever had the pleasure of watching Rube Goldberg machines? You might intend to shoot your enemy, you pull out your gun, your arch foe is in your cross hairs, with all your hate you pull the trigger. Bang! You die! Don't ask me to explain this. Deep down you know what I'm saying is the truth! :smile:
[quote=William Cowper]God moves in a mysterious way.[/quote]
You could, with little difference, swap God's plan with mother nature's. Trust mother nature, some call her Gaia, she's always right! You'll see :grin: If there's a freeze among the options, believe me it's there for a good reason!
[quote=Cândido Rondon]Die if need be, never kill.[/quote]
A tough act to follow, talk is cheap, easier said than done, but that's exactly what makes it so amazingly profound. Pragmatism you might respond, but what a cop-out it is to say we must stick to doable things! Where's the fun in that?!
Quoting Alkis Piskas
So major good is not a code! You know ethics becomes meaningless without a code, right? Ethics is about how to handle situations that are ethical in character, which in very general terms can be described as that involving hedonism (suffering/pain vs. joy/pleasure). We need formulae, that's what we call codes in math (I learnt that in high school).
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Word play Alkis Piskas, word play.
Good day.
I respect your view about No.3 and also your experience regarding it. For me, experience is most important in formulating our realities.
Quoting Agent Smith
I knew about them but not that they had that name or any name! :smile: Thanks for letting me know. (But I can't promise I won't forget soon this name! :grin:) Yes, killing oneself that way is not impossible. There's also Murphy's Law! :grin:
Quoting Agent Smith
Sorry, but I don't like this at all. In fact, I find that besides that it cannot be even considered an argument or an acceptable reply in any discussion, it's also a coward way to explain out things. "I don't know" or "You are right" are at least honest replies. At least one "dies" with honor and dignity. It also shows wisdom. (Indeed, "Openly giving up", by admitting one's defeat is a missing category in your example-situation! :smile:)
Talking about wisdom (not morality), such kind of a giving up often occurs in fights between two masculine animals. One of them just stops fighting and the fight ends just there. Or it just refuses to fight at all in a confrontation and the fight does not take place. Both animals "know their place" and they both live. Animals are often wiser than humans.
Right. Same thing applies if, as you say, you "swap God's plan with mother nature's".
Quoting Agent Smith
Here it is. Another "preset" code that is to be followed blindly, ignoring circumstances and human judgement, esp. moral judgement. In fact, following such a "forced upon" code might not even show morality. It could show "obedience". One can of course really agree with such a code. But why don't you let the individual decide himself about what is right or wrong, if he can kill or not, etc., by just laying down for him the foundations of an ethics system? Wouldn't that be more fruitful?
***
Nice to have this exchange with you, @Agent Smith! :smile:
Spock was interesting precisely because the writers could never quite make his total dedication to logic functional.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, only ceteris paribus[/I]; the novelty of the Taurek paper is that Taurek shows that it is never the case that all other things are equal. Or rather, that it is [i]our choice as to what is to be considered relevant and what isn't. Consider the Captain and the Islanders in the final example in the paper, who are caught in the need to determine what it is that is relevant to the evacuation.
However Aristotle, the author of virtue ethics, was severly criticized for the absence of codes in his ethics. People couldn't use virtue ethics to solve moral problems as easily as they would've liked.
Quoting Banno
:up: You're correct! There are way too many variables for anyone to carry out the felicific calculus; any done would invariably fall short of the mark, oui?
In other words, utilitarianism is as impractical as virtue ethich; in the former, there's a code (felicific calculus) but real-life scenarios are just too complex for the code to handle and in the former, there is no code. This, if nothing else, showcases the mind-boggling complexity of ethics.
Indeed. Quoting Agent Smith
Yep. Ethics is hard.Much harder than just consequences and duty. It requires working on oneself so that one is better placed to make the right decision.
Good to know we see eye to eye on the matter.
I'm curious, how did Aristotle define a virtuous person? Did he do so in terms of his aurea mediocritas (the golden mean) or something else?
If the aurea mediocritas is his (Aristotle's) benchmark, we do have a code of ethics (avoid extremes), no?
It looks complicated!
Albert Einstein, A1 physicist, not an ethicist!
My point is that acting on principles like
Quoting Alkis Piskas
we don't avoid a zombie apocalypse scenario. Ie. if a great number of people survive, it seems inevitable that they will lead low-quality lives.
Who gets to be the judge whether the decision was right or not?
Since the quality criteria here is the same at the both cases (Death), then the next thing we should judge-examine is the quantity criteria.And according to that:Yeah 1 death is preferable than 1+.Seems logical.
It is as simple as that, to my eyes at least.
A great number of people do survive. There may be an overpopulation in some places on the planet as well as limited resources. But ethics will always be based on securing, supporting and promoting survival. Because simply this what life wants: to keep on as long as it can and in as much a better condition as it can.
But there's much more to "survival" than that. I might talk about it in some other post ... (I don't want to overload this one.)
By all means, do tell. How is it possible to ensure the survival of many without risking a zombie scenario, ie. one where people are living low quality lives, and live just for the sake of living, with no greater purpose?
If anyone is interested, I find the linked paper by Tom Dougherty to be a rather persuasive paper on why the numbers should count.
It has been a common belief for many of us that because of the moral indifference of the situation (that is, that all individuals are equally needy), it seems only rational then to look beyond the loss-to-persons and toward the loss-of-persons.
This paper, in my opinion, does a good job of analyzing our intuitions towards saving the greater number without appealing to consequentialism. Ultimately, Dougherty looks at our rational want to satisfy as many of our altruistic ends as possible. He believes as moral beings, we have a certain moral attitude to want to do so. His paper then claims that we ought to satisfy as many of these ends as possible if we are to act rationally.
This is a rather short and incomplete summary of his argument so I suggest reading the paper! It's a quick read!
https://philpapers.org/archive/DOURNA.pdf
OK, more about "survival" ...
When I say "survival", I don't mean survive just as a body, i.e. "stay alive" or escape danger or death. Although in cases of sickness, threat, war, etc. it might mean just that, as a priority. There is another kind or level of survival beyond that, once that has been secured: "well-being". Happiness and pleasure are also two essential elements in human life. (In animal life too, if you just replace "happiness" with "satisfaction". Also ) But these are still very basic and common to everyone. Their opposite, "misery" and "pain", are leading towards death. There's a whole scale of survival here at work.
Yet, "survival" has a much broader meaning. It pertains to our financial situation, our relation with another person of the opposite sex --including sex itself-- our existence as fathers, employees, members of a group, citizens and human being in general. We need to survive from all these aspects too. Failure to do so, might not mean death, but it could mean poverty, separation or divorce, being dismissed from our job or group, and so on, as parallel and opposite situations of the above.
In short, we are surviving on a scale in various aspects of our life.
Quoting baker
I am not sure what do you mean with "zombie scenario", why do you keep talking about zombies and what does this have to do with anything here ...
Living low quality lives exists everywhere in this planet. I big part of the population on Earth unfortunately try only to continue to breathe and escape death from sickness and hunger. But these are not the only ones who have "no greater purpose". I believe that most people on Earth don't. It's not totally their fault. Purpose is missing from the package of life. Life comes with a command: "Live!". It is to us to make a good use of it. For our benefit.
That seems to meet be what Taurek was denying; his point, in part, is that the ceretis paribus clause never applies in the real word' there are always other factors that need be taken into account.
My thoughts exactly! :cool:
Does this clause refer to
1. Another instance of greatest happiness for the greatest number? So I couldn't kill one person, X, to save 5 others (trolley problem) for the reason that X will discover the cure for cancer and save millions of lives. That's again the greatest happiness principle in action, oui?
As is obvious, this doesn't weaken the greatest happiness principle; rather it strengthens it even further.
2. Epistemological difficulties: Can we really predict the future consequences of one's actions? Where do you stop in the chain of causation and deny one's responsible for all effects beyond that?
3. What else?
I started reading the article that you brought up. I left it quite frustrated. And because I don't like to speak in generalities ans withoug "why"s, here is why:
The articly is summarized at start as follows:
"First, you are morally required to want the survival of each stranger for its own sake. Secondly, you are rationally required to achieve as many of these ends as possible, if you have these ends."
1) What does "morally required" mean? Why is it reauired? It's just an arbitrary statement, lacking any explanation or arguments.
2) What "ends" does the author refer to do? There are no "ends" formulated.
Then, the authof continues with a moral example-problem:
"You have 100ml of a drug that you own. Two strangers, Anna and Bert, each need 50ml to live. A third stranger, Clare, needs all 100ml to live. The strangers are in all relevant respects alike. You do not stand in any special relationship to these strangers. All else is equal."
Well, there's no problem formulated here. But let's see how this evolves ...
He says: "Most of us think that you ought to save Anna and Bert. John Taurek famously denies this. This is because he rejects the consequentialist rationale that the ‘numbers should count’ because you ought to produce the most good."
Again, I can't see even a single "Why". Why what most of us think is wrong? Then Taurek denies this because because he rejects the consequentialist rationale ... Is that a real why? What is the reason he rejects that?
Then he continues:
"Some non-consequentialists also reject this rationale."
Again, rejection after rejection, without a single why.
"Some non-consequentialists do let goodness-maximising play some role in their theories; they simply limit what this role is. Maybe they say that promoting the good is limited by deontological constraints ... Maybe they say that you have options to behave partially instead of producing the most good ..."
"Some say ...", "Maybe they say..." Really, what does all that offer? Why should any of that be of any importance of interest?
You owe me 5 minutes of lost time! :smile:
Sure.
The concept of zombies concisely illustrates the futility of living merely for the sake of living.
You said earlier
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Quoting Alkis Piskas
The greater number of those who survive, from some point on, the lesser the quality of their lives, due to limited natural resources.
My question is, with such ethical principles as you state above, how do we avoid the scenario in which a great number of people do survive for some duration of time, but they live lives of poor quality?
In practice, two notable solutions have been attempted: debt and reliance on charity or mercy of others.
In order to ensure current wellbeing, there is the practice of indebting oneself (and thus effectively gambling that one will be able to pay off the debt, with interests). Another is to rely on gifts from others, with no specified intention to repay them. Both of these attempted solutions make people rely on things that are not under their control, and as such, are less than feasible.
How is it for our benefit?
Five terrorists vs. one infant.
In order to prove the implausibility of P2, you'd need to leave the realm of politically correct egalitarianism.
Note how the term "tragedy" is nowadays often used to describe a great variety of events happening to a great variety of people. But originally, in the ancient Greek context, tragedy was reserved for royals. One killed royal was a tragedy; a thousand killed commoners was not.
Additionally, I believe a lot regarding the different theories and their beliefs on maximization are rather common knowledge, and not needed in further detail the beginning of the paper.
Nonetheless, I see your frustration.
I see, OK.
Quoting baker
This can be true in certain cases. Making a lot of children can and does sometimes produce financial problems for the family. But the purpose of, the intention behind making a lot of children, is not for "major good" for more persons. It can be for more happiness for the parents, indifference (not considering the problems such "overproduction"), no contraceptive measures (for various reasons), religion ("Be fruitful and multiply"). etc. There's a irony here, that can be evidenced by seeing poor families --even whole poor areas-- making more children than rich ones. In that case, I would consider such a behaviour even "immoral" or lack or morality at best. I have not made children, for various reasons. One of them was that I could not stand bringing a new life that could be unhappy or suffer from physical problems (abnormalities) or indulged in street drugs (so frequent a phenomenon today), etc. Of course, and fortunately so, relatively few think that way. Otherwise, our race would be extinct! :smile:
Quoting baker
The principle based on "greatest number" does not automatically mean produce as many lives as possible, as I explained above. That's why I think that overpopulation (that we are witnessing in a lot of areas of the world today) is actually a product of lack of morality, even maybe immorality. See, "greatest number" and "major good" work together, as I have already mentioned earlier in this thread. I will also add here that the intention of making good or avoiding harm is what counts. Not by accident or in any other way. The poor-multi-child-family example I gave above shows that. The Bible says "Be fruitful and multiply". It doesn't "back it up" with well-being. It doesn't take into consideration "lives of poor quality" that you mentioned. That's why, for me that command-like statement lacks morality. (But of course, it's not the fault or a weakness of the Christian God. He did not write the Bible.)
Quoting baker
Because we'll be healthier and happier! :smile:
No, I haven't. But see, I would have then to read a whole bunch of literature to find out what it is all about. This would not be me. (But who cares?)
BTW, when myself I present a thesis or subject, I try to offer arguments and/or explanations and/or examples as soon as possible. If you let your readers waiting for that for too long, not only you may lose them, but you also disappoint them, and quite justifiably so.
Quoting Camille
OK.
However, at this point I think I lost the ball ... I don't remember anymore who's against and who's in favor of "number counts" and what are we trying to prove here! :grin:
Quoting Camille
Thanks! :smile:
The topic is about the survival of already existing people, not about producing new people.
Of course. But you have talked about overpopulation, which is what I understood from "The greater number of those who survive, from some point on, the lesser the quality of their lives" ... Doesn't procreation increase the number of those who survive? Anyway, let's close this subject, if you agree.
Part of the collection of books known as the Christian bible refers to the "love of money" as the "root of all evil".
My premise: that famine, war, plague, poverty, ignorance and tyranny all arise from one primary source: overpopulation. Too many people chasing finite resources. That is the root of all evil.
I'm certainly familiar with the political theory that there are plenty of resources but that a tiny minority of the wealthy are hoarding / controlling them.
While that might be so at the moment, I don't think it acknowledges a basic fact of physics, more energy is lost than gained over time.
Malthus was famously "disproved", but his principle remains valid. Unless we prefer to allow the above-mentioned horrors to continue to correct it, population growth on a finite planet is a literal dead end. Eventually, no more oil, which means no more fertilizer, which means no more food....to cite only one example.
It's asinine to bank on technology pulling a rabbit out of it's hat to save us, much less economic pressure or even political attitudes. It doesn't matter how much you recycle, or economize, if population in the aggregate continues to grow.
Economic pressures, the covid plague, and to a small degree social change are pushing down population right now in the best educated / most capable / wealthiest parts of the world, the West. And guess what the birthrate is like elsewhere? Guess what? You can't make a statistical fact false by attempting to shame it or shout it down as "racist".
What is the point of humanity, of human existence? If you reject superstition, the answer used to be "for my kids to have a somewhat better material life than I did".
The liberals want to blame corporate welfare and military spending, the conservatives want to blame entitlements and taxes. And both want to blame Covid. Whatever their dodging and finger pointing, the economic reality of the present in the west is of a car racing to drive off a cliff. The ability of the majority of young people to afford a house, much less to afford to have children in America, is plummeting.
Democracy can't provide economic or environmental stability in the long term, because it is based on an election cycle that incentivizes damaging short term policies, and is populated by the lowest common denominator; not the wisest, but the most popular, and elected by people who use feelings to make their decisions, not logic. A strong case can be made that so called western democracy is nothing but a sham, really just an oligarchy at this point.
Capitalism is the very opposite of economic or environmental stability in the long term, because it is based on an inevitable boom and bust cycle, and predicated on continual growth, accelerating consumption of finite world resources.
The myth of capitalism as a concept is that it is a pure meritocracy, but as practiced now, nothing could be further from the truth. Those who got there first, cheated the most, exploited the most, rule. Not talent, but an ability to game the system of corporate welfare, lobbying, bribery, gained control of wealth, of power. Donald Trump is not John Galt.
So, what is the point of humanity, beyond your lifespan? If humanity is to survive it has to escape the boundaries of a finite system such as this little planet....but I'm getting ahead of myself.
If you don't accept the supernatural, it's clear that evolution got humanity just so far, and humanity now has a measure of control over it's own evolution.
So, where do we want to go from here? That's the first question. What do we want future mankind to be like, and how do we achieve that?
We can either improve the existing strain of humanity, or breed an entirely new one.
The entire history of religion has been a failed and horrific attempt to train humanity, with the chief result being war, fear and ignorance. Politics has failed in equally catastrophic measure to improve humanity.
There's a story from an ancient culture, perhaps Greece. The society wanted to evolve as a culture, but realized that each new generation was repeating the same mistakes, practicing the same vices, as the previous one. They decided that the only way for their children to create a better society was for them to be removed from the current corrupt one. They selected the wisest most virtuous adult among them, handed over all the children to this one man, and sent them all into the mountains to found a new culture, never to return. That's the end of that story / legend / myth.
Various colonies in America, such as Oneida, and too many other experiments to name, have overtly failed to produce any significant evolutionary improvement in mankind.
Just changing the field your cattle are raised in isn't enough. You can sing to them all you want, you won't get healthier cows.
So, why not do both at the same time? A better environment, and a better strain of genes.
I think we can all agree that congenital defects are a universally bad thing, nothing good about them. It's equally true that they can, reliably, be simply bred out of the human race.
Where things get tricky is improvement. Which traits do we want to breed IN to humanity?
Various methods through history have been used, and still are. In contemporary India, if an infant if born female, it's common for the mother to kill it upon birth......because being female is a burden in that economic environment.
[i]A brief digression: A well meaning western organization decided to help stop the cycle of famine and poverty in India, to curb overpopulation by distributing millions of free condoms. They were dismayed when this did not work. It wasn't that Indian men didn't want to wear condoms, they did. It was that Western condoms are huge, they did not fit on Indian men. No one bothered to check.
Overpopulation, poverty and starvation in Mexico? Just American imperialism to blame? Yet given the option of birth control, similarly from well meaning western charities, it was rejected. Women who tried to go to clinics to get birth control pills or birth control implants were beaten and murdered by men. A man in that culture is not ashamed if his kid are dirty, barefoot, hungry, uneducated. All that matter is his machismo, his pride. A real man does not take care of kids, he breeds as many as he can, he thinks that is a sign of being a "real" man, a MACHISMO.....and the Catholic church of course plays right into this. Because, it used to be an agricultural muscle labor economy worldwide, with no sanitation, with high infant mortality....so they got locked into the insanity of "go forth and multiply".[/i]
Eugenics was the law of the land for many years in the United States. The Nazis made an enthusiastic if misguided attempt to breed better people and rid humanity of inferior ones. Communist China introduced a "one child per couple" policy to prevent famine. I mention all of these things to dispel the fallacy that "it cannot be done". It has been done, just not logically or with a coherent goal.
So, what does "superman" look like? A challenging question, but if we turn away from it in cowardice, we leave it to famine, poverty, war and every other historic horror to make the choice for us..
If you gathered a group of apes, and asked them to design the next step in evolution, what would emerge? A man? No. An ape with thicker fur, bigger muscles, stronger teeth. So, several prototypes will have to be tried to get a viable entity , a version of humanity that can outlive the lifespan of this overcrowded polluted starving plague infested planet.
Right now, anyone can have children, as many as they wish. Why? Do we want quantity, or quality?
In order to have a handgun, drive a vehicle, practice as a doctor or lawyer, you have to be licensed, you have to demonstrate some competence and trustworthiness......because doing these things irresponsibly has huge potential negative consequences. Yet the thing with the most potential for harm to the planet and the individual, is having a child......and having kids is a completely unregulated practice.
So, first step is to turn having a child into a PRIVILEGE THAT MUST BE EARNED, not a blank check, the more kids you pop out the more welfare money you get. The cultural shame of being an unwed mother has to come back. The cultural shame of being a deadbeat abandoning dad has to come back, and these have to come back with a VENGEANCE. I live in Washington DC. I know first hand what I am talking about.
Show that you are genetically sound, financially able to provide, not a criminal, not addicted to drugs.
These sound extreme to you? Yet these are only a few of the criteria that many adoption agencies use to filter out unsuitable parent candidates. Why not apply these standards, and more, to everyone?
Ever heard of having to get a blood test in order to get a marriage license? It was to help reduce the passage of sexually transmitted diseases.....in an era when people thought about and cared about fidelity and responsibility and dignity and honor, considered sex something more than just a recreation.
Next, provide incentives for desirable traits to be bred into the human race. We already do this on a small scale, Ivy League college boys paid to donate to sperm banks. On a larger scale, our entire economy is filtering.....if you're part of the One Percent, you can afford kids.....except most of the rich didn't get rich from merit or personal ability.
Well, there is so much more to say, but I'm fatigued. More later, perhaps.
An individual becomes ethical when he or she regards another individual as precious, as having uncountable value.
That is why murder or doing any sort of harm is wrong. The death on one is tragic for those who loved that person. The killing of more-than-one is even more of a moral violation.
For further details and reasoned argument see the my papers, essays, and booklets. Ask Bing. For your convenience, I'll offer here a safe-to-open link to one of these writings:
http://tinyurl.com/nrnb4t4 ... ....Its title is: HOW ETHICS HELPS US FLOURISH. Happy reading!