Two More "Axiom" Questions

[David Sklansky]

Again, I define an axiom question as one where there is really no right or wrong answer EXCEPT once you give your answer, it has implications as to what your answer should be to other questions. If you want to claim you are consistent that is.

1. If you could somehow cure your migraine headache (that you expect will last an hour) by decreeing that a randomly chosen dog in your city's pound be euthanized three days before it was sheduled to be, would you do it? Assume ther was a ten percent chance it would be adopted in the next few days. Do not assume that the early euthanization meant increased chances for other dogs to survive longer.

2. Two people have a week to live and are in intense pain. Assume that you know nothing about them or that they are equal in all circumstances. Except for two things. Patient X's pain is ten percent more excruciating than patient Y's pain. Patient X's illness was caused by the cigarettes about whose warnings he constantly ignored, while patient's Y's illness was through no fault of his own. Only one of those two patients can be given pain medication. Who would you give it to? (Or if you are one of those who resist being put into this spot, change the question to "who would you prefer to see get the medication"?)

[Borodog]

1. No
2. Y

[josh_x]

1. No. Make the headache last >8 hours or so and i would probably do it.

2. Patient Y. Make it >35% or so and i would give it to X.

[Al68]

1. No.
2. Flip coin. Not my place to judge either one.

[BluffTHIS!]

Your Axiom 0: The ends justify the means.

[ALLEN CONRAD]

1-Depending on the severity of the pain, yes. Hell, if the pain was bad enough kill 10.

2-Flip a coin Sounds good to me

[David Sklansky]

Don't get your post.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get your post.

[/ QUOTE ]


I mean that both here and in other past threads, you clearly seem to hold the axiom that various acts never belong to a class of ones that are always wrong no matter the context. Thus it's all "relative", and some otherwise objectively evil acts become acceptable because of discrete subjective circumstances, and there are no exceptions that are always wrong and can never be permissible no matter the circumstances.

[psy]

Unless I've missed the point (possible to likely) I guess DS's point is that the answer varies consistently depending on which premise you hold to be most important.

ie;
i) Premise: to alleviate human suffering is most important
Answer: 1) Yes 2) X
ii) Premise: to protect the innocent is most important
Answer: 1) No 2) Y

Having said that my personal answer would be
1) No - I could not kill a dog with some hope of survival, and besides, the migraine pain would be mine alone.
2) X - I believe X's need is greater right now and that it's not important how X and Y got into this mess.

I feel consistent.

[ALLEN CONRAD]

[ QUOTE ]

i) Premise: to alleviate human suffering is most important
Answer: 1) Yes 2) X


[/ QUOTE ]

Alleviating human suffering was not really the option. Relieving my personal pain was. I may have had a different opinion if it had been another person with the migraine.