alphaomega

InfraBlue wrote:

You began as you when you were conceived.

Did I? Even if we leave some of the more mystical philosophical and spiritual notions aside, we all exist as the result of historical currents. Would I be here now if parts of that historical current were different? Probably not. Thus I cannot agree with you that my beginning (should such an event actually exist) was the conception of my physical form.

Quote:

You will end as you when you die.

Will I? Only if I am nothing more than the matter constituting my physical form.

Quote:

Yeah, the matter constituting your body has existed in some form or another (although I don't know if it can be said that it has always existed), but the specific way in which it is organized as you will not always exist.

But the matter hasn't ceased to exist.

0 Replies

pragmatic: I can't go down that road with you--too many problems with it. With regard to your example, we don't know that the cabin boy would have been the first to die--he might very well have had a stronger constitution than the sailors; it seems more likely that he was chosen because he was the least dangerous of the group to kill. With regard to your 'utilitarian' logic, that's the same sort of argument that has always been used to justify the oppression of minority groups (keep in mind, I'm making no assumptions about your personal views on this issue, just pointing out what appears to be a highly problematic argument). Sacrificing the minority for the majority has survival value only so long as you're part of the majority; historically, majorities and minorities frequently trade roles.

0 Replies

Mills wrote:

But the matter hasn't ceased to exist.

But earlier, when you said, "Only if I am nothing more than the matter constituting my physical form," you implied that you aren't only the matter consituting your physical form.

So, are you only the matter that constitutes your physical form, or not?

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Mills wrote:
But the matter hasn't ceased to exist.

But earlier, when you said, "Only if I am nothing more than the matter constituting my physical form," you implied that you aren't only the matter consituting your physical form.

So, are you only the matter that constitutes your physical form, or not?

My point is that it doesn't matter for the purposes of this debate--either way, existence has not ceased. I do, however, apologize if my attempts to employ physical/empirical and metaphysical/mystical arguments concurrently is resulting in confusing prose. I should probably dispense with references to the mystical since eternal spiritual existence is a given in many traditions.

0 Replies

pragmatic

Quote:

That of course will depend on the situtation as each individual case will differ. In the current case, I am referring to the weaker twin M - that she should die so to save her stronger twin J (stronger as in J had a stronger case to survive, as well as the physical capability) instead of them both dying needlessly.

There is another case which I think is best illustrated via the criminal law term emergency or where it may be acceptable to kill the weakest of the pack so to save the others, more stronger members. In the case of
Dudley v Stevens[/i] which has been cited as the classic case and example: a few sailors in lifeboat killed and ate cabin boy on 20th day at sea

The cases you mentioned can be juridically defined as "state of necessity" (I don't know if this is the correct name for it in english). They represent situations where actions, normally defined as criminal - murder - can be exempt of punishment, due to extreme circumstances.
An example: if I am starving to death and I steal food from a store, I cannot be punished.

I agree with you that the doctors that saved one of the twins killing the other,or the sailors that survived by killing and eating one of them, cannot be punished for murder. In fact they commit a murder but, facing the specific situation, we could not expect them to act differently. I mean, (in the 2nd case) self sacrifice is not a legal imperative.

But, if we put the question as a moral problem, the decision could be different. In this case, it would be a matter of criteria. And I still don't see what is the moral basis to the principle that majority (the stronger, as you said) must have more rights than the minority. 10 lifes have more value than 5? Or 1? Or 9? Why?
I know utilitarian would answer "yes", although I never understood why. If, in 10 people one must be killed in order to allow the other 9 to survive, I think the preliminary reasoning should be this:
If one of those 10 is your son, and the other 9 were strangers to you, would you accept his killing? If there was a fire and you could only save 1 among 3 children, 2 of them completely strangers to you and the third your own son, who would you save? The one that is near the door and with greatest possibilities of being rescued (but he is not your son)?

In your example, the boy was killed because he would have been the first to die. But, if there is no way to decide on that basis? 10 people with the same chances of surviving or not, and, facing the circumstances, only 9 can survive. One must be killed to save the others. Why, and this is the all point to me, is that singular life less important that the other nine?

0 Replies

val wrote:

But, if we put the question as a moral problem, the decision could be different. In this case, it would be a matter of criteria. And I still don't see what is the moral basis to the principle that majority (the stronger, as you said) must have more rights than the minority. 10 lifes have more value than 5? Or 1? Or 9? Why?

As a positivist, I try not to look at the moral issue side of things, but the practical reality.

val wrote:

I know utilitarian would answer "yes", although I never understood why.

This is all I wanted to say to you - that utilitarians in this case would say yes. As to why, it goes back to the basic fundamental roots of what utils believe in - greatest hapiness for the majority.

val wrote:

If, in 10 people one must be killed in order to allow the other 9 to survive, I think the preliminary reasoning should be this:
If one of those 10 is your son, and the other 9 were strangers to you, would you accept his killing? If there was a fire and you could only save 1 among 3 children, 2 of them completely strangers to you and the third your own son, who would you save? The one that is near the door and with greatest possibilities of being rescued (but he is not your son)?

I hope I have the courage to do such self sacrifice. Theorectically, although this situation would break my heart, I would use every fibre of courage to save the majority. My only plea is that they remember me for it.

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

With regard to your 'utilitarian' logic, that's the same sort of argument that has always been used to justify the oppression of minority groups (keep in mind, I'm making no assumptions about your personal views on this issue, just pointing out what appears to be a highly problematic argument).

That has been one of the greatest criticisms of utilitarianism - unfortuantely, nothing is 100% perfect to everyone - that is an impossibility.

0 Replies

pragmatic wrote:

Mills75 wrote:
With regard to your 'utilitarian' logic, that's the same sort of argument that has always been used to justify the oppression of minority groups (keep in mind, I'm making no assumptions about your personal views on this issue, just pointing out what appears to be a highly problematic argument).

That has been one of the greatest criticisms of utilitarianism - unfortunately, nothing is 100% perfect to everyone - that is an impossibility.

Now that we've gone thoroughly off-topic...

I'm having difficulty seeing the utility in your utilitarian argument. Sacrificing the minority simply doesn't always (or even mostly) equal a more beneficial outcome for the majority.

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

Sacrificing the minority simply doesn't always (or even mostly) equal a more beneficial outcome for the majority.

What Bentham and his advocates have said that if a law does benefit the majority, then we ought to implement such a law, or follow such a law.

0 Replies

pragmatic wrote:

Mills75 wrote:
Sacrificing the minority simply doesn't always (or even mostly) equal a more beneficial outcome for the majority.

What Bentham and his advocates have said that if a law does benefit the majority, then we ought to implement such a law, or follow such a law.

Bentham and his advocates didn't have the benefit of Game Theory. Doing something (i.e., following or implementing a law) simply because it benefits the most people at a specific moment in time frequently has only limited survival value (or, to put it in more classical Utilitarian language, may create a greater balance of pleasure over pain for the present, but may set the stage for a greater balance of pain in the future).

0 Replies

pragmatic

But how can you know that a law does benefits the majority? What does it mean "to benefit"?
Let me give you an example: imagine you are in the 17th century. A law that forbids Galileo theory that the earth moves around the sun, would benefit the majority? Yes, because it gives them a feeling of stability, the pride of being the center of the universe, kings of the creation created at the image of God. Galileo's theory could put all that in danger.
Remember, at that time, you, the legislator, cannot know the historical consequences of Galileo discovery.
So, you would legislate exactly how the Inquisition did and put Galileo's book in the index.

0 Replies

pragmatic wrote:

This is all I wanted to say to you - that utilitarians in this case would say yes. As to why, it goes back to the basic fundamental roots of what utils believe in - greatest hapiness for the majority.

I am a utilitarian, and this is not what I believe.

I believe in the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Note the difference between this and 'greatest happiness for the majority', 'or great happiness for a great number' or 'great happiness for >50% of the population' or any other distortions of utilitarianism.

The important bit is the 'greatest number' bit. This doesn't just mean a majority, it means the largest possible majority possible under the circumstances. A utilitarian would only, and you put it, sacrifice a minority for the benefit of a majority if all other possible options would require the sacrifice of a larger minority. Were it possible, a utilitarian would sacrifice no-one at all. After all, the greatest number is all, so anything less than complete happiness for all is a failure by utilitarian standards. The best consequence, for a utilitarian, is the one that fails the least. As others have pointed out, unnecessarily sacrificing minorities for majorities can have very bad consequences.

By the way, should we move this to the utilitarianism thread?

0 Replies

val wrote:

Let me give you an example: imagine you are in the 17th century. A law that forbids Galileo theory that the earth moves around the sun, would benefit the majority? Yes, because it gives them a feeling of stability, the pride of being the center of the universe, kings of the creation created at the image of God. Galileo's theory could put all that in danger. Remember, at that time, you, the legislator, cannot know the historical consequences of Galileo discovery.

In such circumstances I would allow Galileo to continue his research until he was proven wrong by fact - in my eyes, he's being allowed to do so would benefit the majority in the research terms wise - even if he was wrong in his theories, his findings would have benefited both the people back in his time and in the future.

You may say that I am only saying so because I live now and therefore know of his consequnces, but let me put it in the context of today's scientific contraversial issues of cloning and/or genetically modified foods. I support the continuing research of both these scientific possibilities, not because I know for fact they will benefit the public (becuase I don't know - no one knows) but because any research that comes out of them will have the potential benefit for us all. Even if it turns out that the results from cloning experiments are eventually proven wrong, future scientists will know not to go down that path that we took today. Eventually I believe that a result will be reached that will benefit the majority, if not all people on earth.

0 Replies

djbt wrote:

I believe in the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Note the difference between this and 'greatest happiness for the majority', 'or great happiness for a great number' or 'great happiness for >50% of the population' or any other distortions of utilitarianism.

I agree with your analysis - it was my fault, my clumsy language. Your post express much better the belief of utilitarianism. Would it be better if I had said "majority in the circumstances" or "majority in the context?"

djbt wrote:

By the way, should we move this to the utilitarianism thread?

If that can be done, I have no objections. What do the other contributors think?

0 Replies

Well it sure as hell doesn't have anything to do with this thread!:wink:

Please provide link if you do move it.

0 Replies

I have posted to the utilitarianism thread, so this tangential discussion can continue there now.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know