Two More "Axiom" Questions

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any other answer here simply means that you feel the smoker deserves retribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with retribution. X's reckless behaviour simply put him last in line for the medication.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got to do better than that. Give a reason. What you said sounds exactly like "he deserved it". It's retribution. So far, you're just making my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with him, yet I admit it's retribution in a sense. I don't think either person deserves the pain and they both deserve the medication. However, X is less deserving of the medication than Y due to his negligence.

[Vex]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with him, yet I admit it's retribution in a sense. I don't think either person deserves the pain and they both deserve the medication. However, X is less deserving of the medication than Y due to his negligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who defines negligence, and by what standards? Can you point to any human being on the planet who has never knowingly made a bad choice? Every single one of us on this planet regularly does things that are detrimental to his own health or to the health or safety of others.

Every time you eat bad fats or artificial sweeteners, or take over-the-counter-medication, or exceed the speed limit, or jaywalk, or don't move out of a smoggy city to live in the country, or honk your horn in traffic, or drink alcohol, or gamble, or yell at someone, or walk your dog, or sneeze in the presence of others, or leave the toilet without washing your hands, or ride a bike on a road with automobile traffic, or any number of other innocuous things, you are doing something that has the potential to harm yourself and/or others.

So who gets to say which risky activities move you to the low priority list for the medicine? Or would you have the gall to reply to this and say you absolutely always put the health and safety of yourself and everyone around you first, and never ever take any personal risks?

The original question dealt with just the circumstances that led to the two people being in pain and dying: one smoked and the other just got sick. It provided no background information about what other bad choices either might have made -- and in reality all of us make bad choices every day. So what makes one set of bad choices more or less relevant than others? Just the correlation between risky behavior and increased chance of health problems?

Are you going to draw the line there? Then, what if the smoker donated millions to charity while the other guy liked child porn? What if the "charity" was actually a terrorist organization? And don't forget, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Making value judgements like this is a slippery slope. You can never have all of the information, and no two people will give the same weights to all the evidence.

If I get sick, I'll be glad to have a doctor who just considers immediately relevant medical factors when treating me. I think I'm a good person, but I know there're lots of people who would think otherwise, just because they don't have exactly the same value system as me.

For what it's worth, I believe that if I were one of the two patients in that situation, I would ask the doctor to give the medicine to the other person.

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
Who defines negligence, and by what standards? Can you point to any human being on the planet who has never knowingly made a bad choice? Every single one of us on this planet regularly does things that are detrimental to his own health or to the health or safety of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

A quick reply while I'm at work, I'll post something more lengthy later. I'm sure the second person did things detrimental to their health as well -- but by stating that, the first person has done the exact same things since all other things are equal in this question.

No matter what choices person Y has done to hurt themselves, person X has done the same thing plus smoking and ignoring the warnings.

You simply are assuming different histories and backgrounds, that is ignoring a big part of the scenario.

[David Sklansky]

What if the pills aren't free? What if smoking meant you couldn't afford the pain medication? And the non smoker can, because of all the money he saved by not buying cigarettes. Is it right that the system allow that second guy who is in less pain to get it? Suppose you are a pain pill salesman?

[Artsemis]

Good question. I'd say the smoker, unfortunately. It's the only way they will both be rid of pain and there isn't a money value for that as their last days here.

[Artsemis]

Re-reading your last question... is there more than one dose now? Do we still have a single free dose to give?

[Jim C]

1. I'm horrified that people would even consider this. I'm sure many would (though they won't admit it), but I'm not one of them.

2. You need to consider more factors, the most important of which is "what would each do during their last pain-free week of life?" Considering an extreme example, assume one patient, currently incapacitated by his extreme pain, is a world-class nerosurgeon (who smoked) and could conduct a surgical procedure that could save a life. He gets the meds.

One must make a moral value judgement about the *effect* of the pain removal in each of the two cases. Those aren't easy decisions, but more is involved than whether one person has "caused" his own condition.

In the absence of a future contribution to society, perhaps we can consider the contributions the individuals have already made? Has the person offered something to society as their life's work, or are they a deviant predator? The smoker is Nelson Mandela or Albert Schweitzer and the "innocent" is Sonny Barger or Charles Manson? Mandela/Schweitzer get the drugs.

Smoker: Skalnsky, "Victim": McEvoy? Mr. Sklansky, your writing wins you the dope. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
"what would each do during their last pain-free week of life?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Each would do the same as the other.

Aside from it being stated in the original post, you should know that when comparing something specific, all other things should be assumed equal.

[Jim C]

[ QUOTE ]
Aside from it being stated in the original post, you should know that when comparing something specific, all other things should be assumed equal.

[/ QUOTE ]

A very concrete-literal interpretation.

The point is that the differences given are not the correct considerations when making such a decision. The correct answer to the question is thus, "un-ask the question". Or, more precisely, the cases have an insignificant difference in moral value.

If the questions are "Axiom Questions", one assumes their intent is to (hopefully) illuminate a general moral principle. I believe my answer accomplished this. If you prefer a simple, concrete answer to the superficial literal question, then my answer is simply "it doesn't matter." I didn't feel this was a very useful contribution.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, I always wondered why parachute-jumpers wear a helmet.

[/ QUOTE ]

In case you really are curious, I'm a skydiver. It's extremely rare to die merely from a parachute failing to open. Many/most skydiving accidents actually occur under a fully functional parachute. Inexperienced skydivers will attempt to do high-performance, high-speed landings, or will make a careless mistake which causes them to have a hard landing. Or the parachute will be semi-functional, resulting in a faster-than-normal landing. It's sort of like running as fast as you can into a brick wall. Often, this can result in just a few broken bones, if a helmet has helped prevent serious head trauma.