Moral Hypothetical

[Daddy Warbucks]

Oh to have the Special Sklansky Forum reopened!

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
(A) Forbid the company from completing the task.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a certainty that at least 3 lives will be lost. Not a probability, a certainty. This is important.

For example, I think that most of us would agree that the Race to the Moon was a worthwhile endeavor. I believe that there was a high probability that one or more pilots would die; in fact one did (and it could have been prevented). The benefits of the space race, however, outweighted the potential loss of life and thus it went forward.

Here, the only stated benefit would be a monetary gain, and no benefit outside of the company is apparent. In addition, the task will definately leave 3 people dead. Without any further information, I don't see how this can go forward.

I do acknowledge that the employees have consented, but this poses a problem in itself. At the very least, I would argue that if one were to volunteer their life, the potential tradeoff would have to provide a greater potential for saving lives. Otherwise, one does not have the moral right to dispose of themselves without the potential for a greater gain.

[NickMPK]

Where is the $1 billion coming from? If it is newly created wealth, then the government should encourage its creation. But if the company would just make $1 billion by taking it from someone else, then the government should forbid it, because the death resulting would be a net decrease in social wealth.

For example, you could imagine that the company discovered a tax loophole whereby it could gain a $1 billion tax credit is one (or three) of its employees is killed. Obviously, the government doesn't want to encourage the exploitation of this loophole.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]

Where is the $1 billion coming from? If it is newly created wealth, then the government should encourage its creation. But if the company would just make $1 billion by taking it from someone else, then the government should forbid it, because the death resulting would be a net decrease in social wealth.

For example, you could imagine that the company discovered a tax loophole whereby it could gain a $1 billion tax credit is one (or three) of its employees is killed. Obviously, the government doesn't want to encourage the exploitation of this loophole.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is all irrelevant. Not the point of the question.


[ QUOTE ]
It is my understanding that John has agreed to a 3% chance at dying.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which makes it ok to kill him with 100% certainty? Agreeing to a 3% of being killed = agreeing to be murdered 100% of the time as long as you aren't aware of it?


[ QUOTE ]
You forgot, in your equity analysis, to account for possible friendships within the social world that the company is. Therefore, the equation would be more along the lines of 0.03 (death) + 0.97 (5M) + n/100 (losing a friend) + n/99 (losing a friend) +n/98 (losing a friend) where n is the number of friends hyou have in teh company. You could also write it as 0.03 (death) +0.97 (5M) - 0.03 (VF) where VF is the value you attribute to the company's personnel, as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Everything you added undoubtedly factored into the employee's decision to agree to the deal. The precise values assigned to the opportunity costs of death, not making 5 million, etc. etc. are unimportant. What matters is that they all voluntarily agreed to the deal.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
I do acknowledge that the employees have consented, but this poses a problem in itself. At the very least, I would argue that if one were to volunteer their life, the potential tradeoff would have to provide a greater potential for saving lives. Otherwise, one does not have the moral right to dispose of themselves without the potential for a greater gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

True I forgot to mention this in my initial answer. If you don't grant people the right to end their own life (including a bunch of assumptions like not harming others, not providing a greater gain, etc. etc.) then ya I agree A is obvious.

[ArcticKnight]

I am probbaly thinking about this too simply, but the answer IMO is clearly no. The governement must prevent this.

The ONLY way the company makes the money is if it executes 1 specific person, or three specific people. The John option is clearly out, as he is not willing, thus it would be murder (for profit!). The other option would fail anyway, as soon as the 3 people were selected, their lawyers would all argue that each signed a contract that was not legally binding because the conditions (though agreed upon) are neither fair or legal. No judge would uphold the contract.

But, even if 3 did not protest once they found themselevs on the wrong side of death row, the courts would intercede and prevent the company from taking a human life for profit.

It's clearly leaglly wrong. It's also clearly morally wrong, as there is not greater gain for society other than corpoarte and individual wealth.

This would be semi-interesting if the company agreed to give its $500 million directly to starving children or something, but as it is worded there is no societal gain that would cause this to be a moral dilemma.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Where is the $1 billion coming from? If it is newly created wealth, then the government should encourage its creation. But if the company would just make $1 billion by taking it from someone else, then the government should forbid it, because the death resulting would be a net decrease in social wealth.

For example, you could imagine that the company discovered a tax loophole whereby it could gain a $1 billion tax credit is one (or three) of its employees is killed. Obviously, the government doesn't want to encourage the exploitation of this loophole.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is all irrelevant. Not the point of the question.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can this possibly be irrelevant? The question is what sort of private actions should the government encourage/forbid. My answer depends on whether those actions create social wealth. The fact that the company creates wealth for itself does not imply that it has created net wealth. I may have, it may not have; this is not specified by the question.

So the answer is sometimes the government should do one thing, sometimes it should do something else, depending on the nature of the wealth created.

[Howard Treesong]

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise, one does not have the moral right to dispose of themselves without the potential for a greater gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your basis for asserting this? It seems to me that the state should need a compelling interest to insert itself into what is a critically important decision on the part of the employees. I believe the government should not interfere and that this is actually a very easy decision.

Once government starts deciding for us what is good and right and permissible, we put ourselves on the road to totalitarianism. We are so far down that road now that I doubt very much that we can go back.

[NT!]

if i were to ban someone from this thread, would it be more ethical for me to just ban the idiot who started it, resulting in one person being banned for sure, or ban three people in the thread at random?

happy thanksgiving

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Where is the $1 billion coming from? If it is newly created wealth, then the government should encourage its creation. But if the company would just make $1 billion by taking it from someone else, then the government should forbid it, because the death resulting would be a net decrease in social wealth.

For example, you could imagine that the company discovered a tax loophole whereby it could gain a $1 billion tax credit is one (or three) of its employees is killed. Obviously, the government doesn't want to encourage the exploitation of this loophole.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is all irrelevant. Not the point of the question.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can this possibly be irrelevant? The question is what sort of private actions should the government encourage/forbid. My answer depends on whether those actions create social wealth. The fact that the company creates wealth for itself does not imply that it has created net wealth. I may have, it may not have; this is not specified by the question.

So the answer is sometimes the government should do one thing, sometimes it should do something else, depending on the nature of the wealth created.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok fair enough. I just personally don't find the money to be important, though I suppose there's the ethical way of looking at it and the government self interest way of looking at it and they don't necessarily line up with one another.

Also lol NT nice