David Sklansky and the Bible Baby

[SNOWBALL]

LLL

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
You definitely can place a value on human life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently, and it's often appallingly low.

[alphatmw]

maybe i just don't appreciate shakespeare but i go right on the first one without even thinking. 2nd i grudgingly go left. 3 is an easy left.

[m_the0ry]

I see no logical reason to go right in the 2nd scenario. The application of electricity in medicine and technology have saved or extended billions of lives. The "most common decision" I think would have to be either RLL or LLL.

[madnak]

I stipulated no additional loss of life in the second scenario. That's an important distinction. As for why I think most would go RRL, see the other thread.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe i just don't appreciate shakespeare but i go right on the first one without even thinking. 2nd i grudgingly go left. 3 is an easy left.

[/ QUOTE ]

holla

[RJT]

Keep in mind DS said something before to the effect of: calculus would eventual be invented or discovered, just a matter of when. Then he said something about not being so certain about theory of relativity. (I botched it up but he can correctly restate it.)

Also keep in mind, it would be my guess that Shakespeare can never be replicated by anyone else. I think he would agree with this. And I think he does when he asks “Is it OK to randomly kill one person to increase every elses in the world's happiness by 1%?”

[chezlaw]

I'm an easy RRR

Though the second one might mean not getting to see the cricket tonight so lucky for the baby its not going well. At least I get back that wasted evening in Stratford.

chez

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it OK to randomly kill one person to increase every elses in the world's happiness by 1%?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Which is why all the talk of saving the Beatles' music catalogue over a baby (on the other thread) is wrong. My life would be marginally less happy without the Beatles, but an innocent person shouldn't be killed for my increased happiness.

If humans are worth so little why have emergency rooms at all? Just let the gravely injured fend for themselves and spend all that money making the healthy people a little more happy.

[Dot_the_Bot]

seems like the question is:

Is life for the purpose of life, or is life for the purpose of progress?

I say progress. LLL. (people that say RLL simply don't consider art progress, and people that say RRL- are "life for the sake of life" but will take a progress freeroll if it comes up...which is pretty freakin logical if you ask me.)

But really, its just arrogant to believe one is more logical than the other- its a values question and some of us are more utilitarian is all.