|
|
#11
08-28-2007, 08:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Stem Cells, Iraqi Children, Dogfighting
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Self defense can obviously include the defense of 3rd parties *when B is the aggressor*. [/ QUOTE ] That's what I thought. So the crazy scientist that is gonna accidentally release his disease on the jews is untouchable by your standards? Good-bye jews? Or does unintentional aggression count as well? [/ QUOTE ] I think it is proper to use force, even deadly force if absolutely required, to stop someone from committing negligent manslaughter. [/ QUOTE ] Ok. Now let's say some scientist unleashes said disease, inflicting all the Jews with a virus that will result in their painful deaths in the next 9-15 months. The creation of the disease somehow involved his unusual DNA. If we could use some of the cells, in... I don't know... let's say his brain, we would be able to cure the disease. Unfortunately, the scientist took his own life upon realizing what he had done. But alas! The scientist has an elderly decrepit father with the same incredibly rare DNA defect! Is it ok to kill him to harvest his brain cells to cure the same disease you were willing to kill the innocent scientist earlier to prevent? In both cases, you would be taking one innocent life to save all the jews. Only this time, the victim is already much closer to death. If no, how could this case be any less favorable? If yes, what if there were only a 98% chance his death would help? 50%? 20? 0.1? Edit: Bluffthis: please answer the same questions, as well as the previous one that blues answered yes to. 
|
|
#12
08-28-2007, 10:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stem Cells, Iraqi Children, Dogfighting
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The fact that he has been told that the children's deaths are now "required" will have little impact on him. Nor should it. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree, it should have a big impact or at least its not the case that it shouldn't. chez [/ QUOTE ] I suspected you would say this. This situation is a very good hypothetical that illustrates the crux of our disagreement about a lot of things. Maybe philosophers even have a name for the two positions we are taking here. But I think I can prove your position is untenable and I will try to do that in the near future in another thread.
|
|
#13
08-28-2007, 10:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stem Cells, Iraqi Children, Dogfighting
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The fact that he has been told that the children's deaths are now "required" will have little impact on him. Nor should it. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree, it should have a big impact or at least its not the case that it shouldn't. chez [/ QUOTE ] I suspected you would say this. This situation is a very good hypothetical that illustrates the crux of our disagreement about a lot of things. Maybe philosophers even have a name for the two positions we are taking here. But I think I can prove your position is untenable and I will try to do that in the near future in another thread. [/ QUOTE ] Sounds fun though I'm pretty sure my position is not what you think it is. You might even like it, probably not. chez
|
|
#14
08-29-2007, 08:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stem Cells, Iraqi Children, Dogfighting
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Self defense can obviously include the defense of 3rd parties *when B is the aggressor*. [/ QUOTE ] That's what I thought. So the crazy scientist that is gonna accidentally release his disease on the jews is untouchable by your standards? Good-bye jews? Or does unintentional aggression count as well? [/ QUOTE ] I think it is proper to use force, even deadly force if absolutely required, to stop someone from committing negligent manslaughter. [/ QUOTE ] Ok. Now let's say some scientist unleashes said disease, inflicting all the Jews with a virus that will result in their painful deaths in the next 9-15 months. The creation of the disease somehow involved his unusual DNA. If we could use some of the cells, in... I don't know... let's say his brain, we would be able to cure the disease. Unfortunately, the scientist took his own life upon realizing what he had done. But alas! The scientist has an elderly decrepit father with the same incredibly rare DNA defect! Is it ok to kill him to harvest his brain cells to cure the same disease you were willing to kill the innocent scientist earlier to prevent? In both cases, you would be taking one innocent life to save all the jews. Only this time, the victim is already much closer to death. If no, how could this case be any less favorable? If yes, what if there were only a 98% chance his death would help? 50%? 20? 0.1? Edit: Bluffthis: please answer the same questions, as well as the previous one that blues answered yes to. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure I follow this entire thread / Justin's line of discussion - are we simply talking about the merits of pure utilitarianism here? In Justin's specific situation, one solution (that can be generalizable to a degree) is that you could personally murder the scientist, turn yourself in to authorities, and accept your own death as a punishment / utilitarian consequence of saving a large number of innocents. While this is by no means an airtight moral answer, it will ensure that the percentage chance that the scientist is going to accidentally kill people will be more critically evaluated, etc. Or - as a purely utilitarian move - the potential victims (in your case a large number of jews) - could randomly select of subset of themselves to conspire for the murder and face a death sentence. They could pick the number set for death as inversely proportional to the estimated probability of the scientists actually accidentally killing them, and i think that would maximize the utility, and make the burden somewhat more equitable. matt
|
|
#15
08-29-2007, 09:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stem Cells, Iraqi Children, Dogfighting
[ QUOTE ]
. They don't claim that the stem cell researchers ... [/ QUOTE ] You appear to be missing the point. Most people don’t really claim anything. They just let their gut feeling decide for them, and if pressed produce some half hearted defense. There is no reason for this defense to make sense or be logical, as long as it is strong enough to help them booster their belief. Beliefs are just a link in a process that we use to make decisions. The important thing is not that the process be logically consistent, but that the process produce acceptable results for the individual in situations where it matters. Most people will not be ordering bombing raids on Afghan villages or instituting stem sell research, so their is no need for their beliefs in this area to make sense. Also how about a woman who is a vegetarian and married to a man who likes dog fights, say she cant get out of the marriage easily, might their be circumstances where it would be best for her to hold an inconsistent belief structure.
|
|
#16
08-29-2007, 09:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stem Cells, Iraqi Children, Dogfighting
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The fact that he has been told that the children's deaths are now "required" will have little impact on him. Nor should it. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree, it should have a big impact or at least its not the case that it shouldn't. chez [/ QUOTE ] I suspected you would say this. This situation is a very good hypothetical that illustrates the crux of our disagreement about a lot of things. Maybe philosophers even have a name for the two positions we are taking here. But I think I can prove your position is untenable and I will try to do that in the near future in another thread. [/ QUOTE ] You should probably specify that the children are Israeli (or whatever) hostages. That is because not all of us would agree that the death of Osama's children would be "unfortunate," given what they are likely to become when they grow up. And that view avoids the moral dilemma you are trying to demonstrate.
|
|
#17
08-29-2007, 12:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stem Cells, Iraqi Children, Dogfighting
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The fact that he has been told that the children's deaths are now "required" will have little impact on him. Nor should it. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree, it should have a big impact or at least its not the case that it shouldn't. chez [/ QUOTE ] I suspected you would say this. This situation is a very good hypothetical that illustrates the crux of our disagreement about a lot of things. Maybe philosophers even have a name for the two positions we are taking here. But I think I can prove your position is untenable and I will try to do that in the near future in another thread. [/ QUOTE ] You should probably specify that the children are Israeli (or whatever) hostages. That is because not all of us would agree that the death of Osama's children would be "unfortunate," given what they are likely to become when they grow up. And that view avoids the moral dilemma you are trying to demonstrate. [/ QUOTE ] Thank you chez.
|
|
#18
08-29-2007, 12:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stem Cells, Iraqi Children, Dogfighting
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The fact that he has been told that the children's deaths are now "required" will have little impact on him. Nor should it. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree, it should have a big impact or at least its not the case that it shouldn't. chez [/ QUOTE ] I suspected you would say this. This situation is a very good hypothetical that illustrates the crux of our disagreement about a lot of things. Maybe philosophers even have a name for the two positions we are taking here. But I think I can prove your position is untenable and I will try to do that in the near future in another thread. [/ QUOTE ] You should probably specify that the children are Israeli (or whatever) hostages. That is because not all of us would agree that the death of Osama's children would be "unfortunate," given what they are likely to become when they grow up. And that view avoids the moral dilemma you are trying to demonstrate. [/ QUOTE ] Thank you chez. [/ QUOTE ] ? make no difference to me whose kids they are (unless I know them) fred
|
|
#19
08-29-2007, 12:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stem Cells, Iraqi Children, Dogfighting
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The fact that he has been told that the children's deaths are now "required" will have little impact on him. Nor should it. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree, it should have a big impact or at least its not the case that it shouldn't. chez [/ QUOTE ] I suspected you would say this. This situation is a very good hypothetical that illustrates the crux of our disagreement about a lot of things. Maybe philosophers even have a name for the two positions we are taking here. But I think I can prove your position is untenable and I will try to do that in the near future in another thread. [/ QUOTE ] You should probably specify that the children are Israeli (or whatever) hostages. That is because not all of us would agree that the death of Osama's children would be "unfortunate," given what they are likely to become when they grow up. And that view avoids the moral dilemma you are trying to demonstrate. [/ QUOTE ] Thank you chez. [/ QUOTE ] ? make no difference to me whose kids they are (unless I know them) fred [/ QUOTE ] ?? indeed I'm not sure whether Mr. Sklansky is trying to imply something, or if he confused my post for one of yours.
|
|
#20
08-29-2007, 03:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stem Cells, Iraqi Children, Dogfighting
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I follow this entire thread / Justin's line of discussion - are we simply talking about the merits of pure utilitarianism here? [/ QUOTE ] No. Whatever criterion you use, if there is no set of weights and balances to measure utility, then your set of criterion is logically indefensible. I am not 100% utilitarian, although I'm pretty close. But what I'm talking about is any form of reasonable logic should lead someone to being at least 1% utilitarian. If you wouldn't shoot an innocent person in the foot to save a billion lives from severe suffering and ultimately death, then you have some serious problems, especially if you think the Christian God is on your side.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
