A More General Way To State My Two Last Axiom Questions

[David Sklansky]

1. Do you believe the higher mammals, and perhaps birds, deserve consideration in more than minute ways if helping, or not hurting them, might cause a hardship to some humans.

2. Do you believe that scarce, extremely important humanitarian assets such as pain pills or MRIs should be allocated depending on how badly one needs it (at least within our country) or should those who lived their life recklessly be denied these things in favor of those who need it somewhat less, but did mainly the right things.

In this second question I assume that not everyone can get the treatment. And I offer two different types of recklessness. Dangerous behavior in disregard of the obvious increased chances you will need the treatment, or lazy behavior in that, in spite of your talents, you choose to live your life in a way where you won't be able to pay for those treatments. Keep in mind that if you claim that these foibles shouldn't mean his treatment is witheld from someone who needs it less, you are avoiding "punishing" him but you are also in a sense "punishing" the other person who believed he would gain, (and his country would gain,) from his more responsible behavior. In fact regarding the first category of recklessness, the responsible guy, if the treatment is withheld from him, can directly blame the first guy.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Do you believe the higher mammals, and perhaps birds, deserve consideration in more than minute ways if helping, or not hurting them, might cause a hardship to some humans.

2. Do you believe that scarce, extremely important humanitarian assets such as pain pills or MRIs should be allocated depending on how badly one needs it (at least within our country) or should those who lived their life recklessly be denied these things in favor of those who need it somewhat less, but did mainly the right things.

In this second question I assume that not everyone can get the treatment. And I offer two different types of recklessness. Dangerous behavior in disregard of the obvious increased chances you will need the treatment, or lazy behavior in that, in spite of your talents, you choose to live your life in a way where you won't be able to pay for those treatments. Keep in mind that if you claim that these foibles shouldn't mean his treatment is witheld from someone who needs it less, you are avoiding "punishing" him but you are also in a sense "punishing" the other person who believed he would gain, (and his country would gain,) from his more responsible behavior. In fact regarding the first category of recklessness, the responsible guy, if the treatment is withheld from him, can directly blame the first guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allright, I'll give this a shot.

1. As to this question (both really) far more details are needed to be certain. Generally speaking, and all other things being equal (important point), I think its pretty clear that whatever ethical beliefs we follow they would include the belief that our species comes first: if you see a hurt human and a hurt bird, human first. Even if its a badly hurt bird and a lightly hurt human, which is more like your question. Your question specifically would depend on a lot of things: How much help for the animals, how much hurt for the humans; can the humans be otherwise compensated; is it a species that is special to many, etc... until finally you come to the point where any harm to the humans is so small and the benefit to the species so significant, that the answer must change.

2. This requires more set up details too. If I were a doctor and it was my duty to treat only one and all other things were equal (again important) - I'd first ask what idiot designed this particular health care system - then I would be inclined to help the "healthy life" guy first. But I am torn even there becasue people who do dangerous things are generally the innovators in society. You will note however that I do accept that when faced with such an unavoidable choice - the benefit should go to the more deserving - how ever one may define that...Whichever way I went the history of their health care would be near the bottom of my list of considerations - what if its also true that one is a mass-murderer and the other a famous healer? But still I would be more mad at any system that created this dilemma and would mostly seek ways out of the box/a new system.

PS - I still hope you are going to respond to my post in the "saving poker" thread.

Next...

[mjkidd]

Sklansky -- Neither pain pills nor MRIs are scarce or particularly dear. You need to be thinking about hearts, kidneys and livers here.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that if you claim that these foibles shouldn't mean his treatment is witheld from someone who needs it less, you are avoiding "punishing" him but you are also in a sense "punishing" the other person who believed he would gain, (and his country would gain,) from his more responsible behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]
That contains the key point. If your country has given him reason to believe he will gain preferential treatment by his behavior then he should gain that treatment.

However in any decent country imo it would be clear that he gets no preferential treatment - either he pays for it or relies on a system based on clinical need.

chez

[jjacky]

1. yes

2. a) if someone willingly increases his chances to need medical treatment he shouldn't get the pills with as high a priority as other people.
b) if someone ist just a little lazy that should not count as reckless behavior.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that if you claim that these foibles shouldn't mean his treatment is witheld from someone who needs it less, you are avoiding "punishing" him but you are also in a sense "punishing" the other person who believed he would gain, (and his country would gain,) from his more responsible behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

the "punishment" can even be more direct. say we can rate the intensity of the pain with numbers. the higher the number the more intense is the pain (or the more urgent is the medication).
the healthy life guy has an intensity level of 100.
the other guy would have a level of 90 if he lived responsible, but his behavior made his suffering more severe and now he rates 110 on the pain scale.

if the reckless person gets the medication, he gets a reward for his behavior while the other guy gets punished. in quite a direct way. imo this can't be desirable.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
if the reckless person gets the medication, he gets a reward for his behavior while the other guy gets punished. in quite a direct way. imo this can't be desirable.

[/ QUOTE ]
but its a moral judgement about how we think othe rpeople behave rather than anything to do with the problem bein self-inflicted.

For example there may be problems associated with having children but most who would argue against smokers wouldn't argue against mothers.

Also those who suggest the smoker shouldn't be rewarded because they are an effective drain on the system wouldn't argue that smokers shgould be rewarded if they are a net benefit on the system (as is possibly the case in the UK and certainly could be the case).

chez

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Do you believe the higher mammals, and perhaps birds, deserve consideration in more than minute ways if helping, or not hurting them, might cause a hardship to some humans.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. However, I believe that any animal or insect or plant deserves consideration even if helping them, or not hurting them, might cause a hardship to some humans if a larger community of humans stand to benefit from that consideration now or in the future.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Do you believe that scarce, extremely important humanitarian assets such as pain pills or MRIs should be allocated depending on how badly one needs it (at least within our country) or should those who lived their life recklessly be denied these things in favor of those who need it somewhat less, but did mainly the right things.

In this second question I assume that not everyone can get the treatment. And I offer two different types of recklessness. Dangerous behavior in disregard of the obvious increased chances you will need the treatment, or lazy behavior in that, in spite of your talents, you choose to live your life in a way where you won't be able to pay for those treatments. Keep in mind that if you claim that these foibles shouldn't mean his treatment is witheld from someone who needs it less, you are avoiding "punishing" him but you are also in a sense "punishing" the other person who believed he would gain, (and his country would gain,) from his more responsible behavior. In fact regarding the first category of recklessness, the responsible guy, if the treatment is withheld from him, can directly blame the first guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a perfect world, I think the medicine should go to the guy (or nation) who can pay the most for it. It is highly unlikely that both would be in enough pain where they would both spend everything they had AND they both had the same amount of money to the penny.

Odds are good that the responsible guy will have more money unless the irresponsible guy is a rock star or something. In the case of the rich irresponsible rock star, then I guess he gets the drugs.

I reject the premise in question 2 that the medicine is free and the person holding the medicine is forced to make a moral judgement instead of a financial one.

[ILoveShowGirls]

I am going to ignore question 1 because I have conflicting views on it.

Question 2.
Thanks to the redistributive effects of taxation in my country, the UK, this is a real and everyday problem.
84 year old war vets have to wait 18 months or more for hip replacement operations whilst ignorant and drunken fools who fight each other in the street absorb billions of £s in emergency room treatment that they don't have to pay a fair proportion of. Every Saturday night the ERs around the UK are busy repairing these people so they are ready for the next Saturday nights festivities.

In many cases, these bums are unemployed and in receipt of financial benefits from the government that they cannot loose their right to, no matter their bad behaviour. Even if their activities somehow land them in prison the benefits meter keeps on ticking and on release they collect a handsome cheque and a place to live rent free and tax free paid for by society.

These people are allowed to live economically unviable lifestyles because they are indulged in their poor lifestyle choices by a state bureaucracy that gives them the means to continue.

If these people had to pay their way, they would not indulge in such behaviour so often because they would not be able to afford to do so without suffering the horrifying consequences of their actions.

They are only one example of a group who benefits by not having to face the economic consequences of their own actions.

I would rather see a system where those who have contributed the most to society, like my war vet, would get preferential treatment and those who contribute nothing get nothing. The current ideology of the treat the greatest need and be blind to the circumstances is -ev for any society.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks to the redistributive effects of taxation in my country, the UK, this is a real and everyday problem.
84 year old war vets have to wait 18 months or more for hip replacement operations whilst ignorant and drunken fools who fight each other in the street absorb billions of £s in emergency room treatment that they don't have to pay a fair proportion of. Every Saturday night the ERs around the UK are busy repairing these people so they are ready for the next Saturday nights festivities.

[/ QUOTE ]
The tax take from alcohol was £9 billion in 2004 plus the tax on profits made by drink manufacturers, pubs etc. Its possible that the drinkers are subsidising the treatment of the very people you claim so much concern for. Maybe you should be encouraging them to drink more.

chez