should the numbers count?

Hi apparentlymartin, and welcome to A2K! :-D

I'm trying to understand what you mean - e. g. is it something like if I turn left I kill one person who is a close relative, but if I turn right I kill 1,000 complete strangers. Which way should I turn??

If so, then one school of thought is utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill was the biggie in that area), e. g. do the greatest good for the greatest number, or do the best for the most. If that sounds like communism, it is similar.

Or am I totally missing the point of what you're saying?

apparently Martin, I too was a mite confused by your question, however, if Jespah has caught your meaning, I would like to take this oppotunity to vote against "numerical innocence";

No matter what decision you make, you remain ethically responsible for your actions. The only solution is to do what you honestly feel to be the best choice; and stand by the consecquences.

thanks for your thoughts
you've both touched on the surface of what i am considering... there is an article by John Taurek who tries to convince his reader that there is no need to consider the numbers involved in any circumstance.

he makes the following example - there are 6 people who are suffering from an illness that can only be cured by one special type of drug, of which there is a limited quantity (and no more can be made). One of the victims needs the entire quantity to survive, the five need only 1/5th of the drug. His argument is that the one person (lets call him david) would value his life over the lives of the others (not in the sense that it is more valuable, rather that it is of more value to himself). If the drug belongs to david, he would be entitled to administer it to himself, and this would not be considered wrong. However, if the drug belongs to an onlooker, who may not even know the 6 people invovled, to give it to David would be considered morally irresponsible. Taurek says that it is absurd to apply one set of rules to the victims and one set of rules to the onlookers - why is it wrong to make the same choice as David?

it is quite a difficult case to argue against, even though it goes against all our innate conceptions of what morality is.

I had to analyse this for an essay (which i have now completed) - but i was wondering if anyone can come up with any objections to the argument that i haven't thought of, since it is quite a fascinating topic.

The article by Taurek does include a host of other examples, but my synopsis gives the general thrust of the argument.

Thank you

Martin

I do not agree with the principle that you extract from the example that you cite.

Why is the subjective importance of the life of one person considered legitimately more important than the objective importance of life to people in general? I do not agree that the individual would be acting responsibly by saving his life at the cost of the lives of five others.

Value is by its very nature a quantitative concept and cannot rationally be promulgated except with reference to quantities.

apparantly, WELCOME to A2K. Good question. However, and there's always a however, the question confuses ethics by trying to imply that one life is more important than a greater number of lives. Simply put, human life, all human life has value. All life is equal, one life is not more important than two of the other. Heroes are made of sacrificing themselves for another. c.i.

I'm not sure if you were replying to me or the original post, because your reply doesn't disagree with mine at all, even though it purports to do so :-)

This question serves well to illustrate the human condition; there is no "answer" all answers are subjective, and therefore based upon unsound logic.

Only an impartial arbiter with total knowledge of all the participants, their capacities, obligations, needs, potentials, etc., etc., but without any related biases, could decide fairly, and no such conflicting position is possible.

BoGoWo - Upon what do you base the assertion that all answers are subjective?

And as to the second point, is that not just a recitation of the principle of uncertainty? Why have you not had regard for the balancing of probabilities with regard to the resolution of ambiguity?

The reality is that, despite not being certain of producing in all circumstances a perfect answer, humans have to make decisions on these matters, and it is possible to say that some decisions are more right than others.

Im curious in the paper you wrote what objections did you outline?

The only argument I have is that I agree that 2 sets of rules are absurd and that self sacrifice is not such an uncommon behavior...as hard as it is David ought to give is drugs away with the greater good in mind...if David and the other five patients were the last people on earth this argument becomes self evident...now I wonder if David was an Einstein in medical sciences and could be expected to save many lives if he himself was saved...I guess you would argue certainty was required to make such an argument...anyway from an evolutionary stand point and considering critical mass is important for a species all the way through its unfolding the greater good seams to be a safe bet.

I think on an ethical basis, you have the right conclusion, but that's not how real life works.

Look at our aggression against other countries that posed no threat to us, and yet we have been responsible for the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people in the name of our national defense.

In reality, these kind of discussion is an oxymoron.