Cumulative Death

[Paradoxum]

If you had to choose between saving the one person you loved the most from death, or 1000 people you know to varying degrees (or no degree), do you have an obligation to do either?

At first glance you could say that one life isn't worth a thousand others, so you are morally require to save the thousand.

But should the harm of death be added up like that? No one experiences' the personal harm of a 1000 deaths. Each individual only experiences their own death.

So on an individual view point, no greater harm is done to whether 1 or a 1000 people die.

So would it be morally acceptable to save one person you love, over a 1000 others?


(Inspired by a game I finished playing)

 

[Eryk]

Yes, because we already have a commitment to the people who are closest to us. Deciding for the 1,000 would betray the trust of the 1, by killing them.

I suppose this works on any scale. A government cannot impoverish its own people by emptying the treasury to help global poverty.

 

[Davian]

If you had to choose between saving the one person you loved the most from death, or 1000 people you know to varying degrees (or no degree), do you have an obligation to do either?

At first glance you could say that one life isn't worth a thousand others, so you are morally require to save the thousand.

But should the harm of death be added up like that? No one experiences' the personal harm of a 1000 deaths. Each individual only experiences their own death.

So on an individual view point, no greater harm is done to whether 1 or a 1000 people die.

So would it be morally acceptable to save one person you love, over a 1000 others?


(Inspired by a game I finished playing)

Does everyone (including the loved one) get to know about my decision, or do I get to keep the crushing guilt to myself?

 

[jacknife]

If you had to choose between saving the one person you loved the most from death, or 1000 people you know to varying degrees (or no degree), do you have an obligation to do either?

At first glance you could say that one life isn't worth a thousand others, so you are morally require to save the thousand.

But should the harm of death be added up like that? No one experiences' the personal harm of a 1000 deaths. Each individual only experiences their own death.

So on an individual view point, no greater harm is done to whether 1 or a 1000 people die.

So would it be morally acceptable to save one person you love, over a 1000 others?


(Inspired by a game I finished playing)

This sounds really familiar can i ask what game?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

For twenty years I was saving the 1000 others. (at the end of the day, I am the one I love the most).

 

[Chany]

If you had to choose between saving the one person you loved the most from death, or 1000 people you know to varying degrees (or no degree), do you have an obligation to do either?

At first glance you could say that one life isn't worth a thousand others, so you are morally require to save the thousand.

But should the harm of death be added up like that? No one experiences' the personal harm of a 1000 deaths. Each individual only experiences their own death.

So on an individual view point, no greater harm is done to whether 1 or a 1000 people die.

So would it be morally acceptable to save one person you love, over a 1000 others?


(Inspired by a game I finished playing)

But the point is that 1000 individual lives have ended. The totality of the harm of each of their individual deaths is more than the totality of harm from the individual death of one person, all other things being equal.

It's like saying feeding 1 starving person carries the same net benefit as feeding 1000 starving people because it's not like one person can get the total benefit of 1000 meals at once. Or it's like saying it's the same to punch one person as opposed to 1000 people because everyone only experiences one punch. There is a clear difference in the outcome.

I don't get your reasoning. If this was an actual moral situation someone faced, this argument would seem like an after-the-fact psychological rationalization, not a philosophical argument against a consequentialist approach to the issue.

 

[Sketcher]

I believe a legitimate answer to this came up at the end of Star Trek III.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I dont know if its morally productive to consider such cases. Ok we might have developed concepts of "agent focused" and "agent neutral" conceptions of morality, as a result of such, but where do they get us on a day to day basis? I think in some contexts its even offensive. We discuss counterfactual hypothesicals (if this and if that's which aren't real) and people starve, die, are tortured, are disposessed etc. But maybe I ought not complain too much, as we are only human and there's little we as forum members can do about such things...

 

[Nithavela]

I would choose to save the person I love, for the reason that I would want to kill the maximum number of humans.

 

[Eryk]

But the point is that 1000 individual lives have ended. The totality of the harm of each of their individual deaths is more than the totality of harm from the individual death of one person, all other things being equal.

It's like saying feeding 1 starving person carries the same net benefit as feeding 1000 starving people because it's not like one person can get the total benefit of 1000 meals at once. Or it's like saying it's the same to punch one person as opposed to 1000 people because everyone only experiences one punch. There is a clear difference in the outcome.

I don't get your reasoning. If this was an actual moral situation someone faced, this argument would seem like an after-the-fact psychological rationalization, not a philosophical argument against a consequentialist approach to the issue.

It's not a math problem if the one is your own child.

We have to take human nature and the facts of life into account. We cannot expect people to have the same amount of care for close relatives, acquaintances, strangers, and abstract "humanity". You're going to have a hard time if you expect that to happen.

In order to survive we had to form Dunbar's-number-sized groups based on trust and mutual aid. But we will not survive as a species if we don't scale up to deal with global problems.

 

[Chany]

It's not a math problem if the one is your own child.

We have to take human nature and the facts of life into account. We cannot expect people to have the same amount of care for close relatives, acquaintances, strangers, and abstract "humanity". You're going to have a hard time if you expect that to happen.

In order to survive we had to form Dunbar's-number-sized groups based on trust and mutual aid. But we will not survive as a species if we don't scale up to deal with global problems.

I feel you completely missed my point. I was saying Paradoxum's argument to justify her position was not good. I wasn't talking about how much we care anout the one person. If there wasn't this level of care in the one person, I doubt we would face this moral problem.

 

[Paradoxum]

Yes, because we already have a commitment to the people who are closest to us. Deciding for the 1,000 would betray the trust of the 1, by killing them.

Even though you're kind of agree with me, I don't agree with you. I don't think personal loyalty is THAT important.

I suppose this works on any scale. A government cannot impoverish its own people by emptying the treasury to help global poverty.

Though the people could vote for such a party.

 

[Paradoxum]

Does everyone (including the loved one) get to know about my decision, or do I get to keep the crushing guilt to myself?

Only the loved one gets to know.

 

[Paradoxum]

But the point is that 1000 individual lives have ended. The totality of the harm of each of their individual deaths is more than the totality of harm from the individual death of one person, all other things being equal.

But no one is subjected to more than one death.

It's like saying feeding 1 starving person carries the same net benefit as feeding 1000 starving people because it's not like one person can get the total benefit of 1000 meals at once. Or it's like saying it's the same to punch one person as opposed to 1000 people because everyone only experiences one punch. There is a clear difference in the outcome.

Well I agree the 1000 punch is similar, and I think it may make no moral difference.

I don't get your reasoning. If this was an actual moral situation someone faced, this argument would seem like an after-the-fact psychological rationalization, not a philosophical argument against a consequentialist approach to the issue.

Do you really not get my reasoning, even if you disagree? To each individual only their death is directly relevant. Whether 1 or 1000 people die, the harm is the same to any individual, and it's only the individual which can be harmed.

And I didn't think of this reasoning before I made the choice (in game).

Not that I'm saying I'm definitely right. I would have made the same choice even if it was wrong. Emotion trumps principle sometimes.

 

[Paradoxum]

I believe a legitimate answer to this came up at the end of Star Trek III.

Star Treck episode dealing with this issue was mentioned in the game. Perhaps this is it.

 

[Paradoxum]

I dont know if its morally productive to consider such cases. Ok we might have developed concepts of "agent focused" and "agent neutral" conceptions of morality, as a result of such, but where do they get us on a day to day basis? I think in some contexts its even offensive. We discuss counterfactual hypothesicals (if this and if that's which aren't real) and people starve, die, are tortured, are disposessed etc. But maybe I ought not complain too much, as we are only human and there's little we as forum members can do about such things...

I don't see how it is anti-productive to consider such things. If I wasn't typing on here, I wouldn't be helping homeless people.

I think it's good to think about our moral stance, even if such a situation is unlikely to happen to you specifically.

 

[Sketcher]

Star Treck episode dealing with this issue was mentioned in the game. Perhaps this is it.

Not an episode, a movie.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Last of Us?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't see how it is anti-productive to consider such things. If I wasn't typing on here, I wouldn't be helping homeless people.

I think it's good to think about our moral stance, even if such a situation is unlikely to happen to you specifically.

First thanks for the answer! ANd for the opportunity to chat..

Ok, but there was a New York Times (IIRC) article, saying university had spoiled philosophy, which used to be about who was the wisest. My personal take on 1 versus 1000 issue, well it has to be about rational attraction to being.

And in this case its so complicated an issue theres no hard and fast answer.

Trying to look for "the answer" is like trying to do the impossible.

The further away from unit-value focus we go (in terms of being wired to ones own being towards calculating for the masses) the further from the "narrrow gate" we to into the realm of uncertainty.

And because theres no stipulation about which agent to care for most (from an abstact POV) the math or logic is open to many interpretations.

We can have self focus, but theres much plasticity - i.e. flexibility - about which path one should take.




graph created here:
https://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/createagraph/default.aspx

ETA I may be using "bounded rationality" in an odd sense.

For each agent there is a fitness landscape, in terms of the utility of any decision would have. Because life is so complex (chaotic) i think we should stick to high certainty principles of personal well being, and not get drawn into hyperspaces where we have to calculate trillions of variables or people interacting.

“Honor the physician with the honour due unto him for the uses ye may have of him: for the Lord created him….The skill of the physician shall lift up his head, and in the sight of great men he shall be in admiration. The Lord hath created medicines out of the earth, and he that is wise will not abhor them…. And the Lord hath given men skill, that He might be honored in His marvelous works. With such doth [the physician] heal men, and taketh away their pains. Of such doth the apothecary make a confection; and of his works there is no end; and from him is peace over all the earth” (Wisdom of Sirach 38:1-8).
source:http://nstanosheck.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/why-orthodox-christians-prefer.html​

Trolley problems are better answered with health food. Society is an emergent phenomenon form billions of agents interacting. You can predict personal weather better than mass scale weather, because an apple a day for me is a fairly simple equation to assimilate, whereas if you input that into a chaotic system the cumulative effects are untestable...

from wikipedia:

In evolutionary biology, fitness landscapes or adaptive landscapes (types of Evolutionary landscapes) are used to visualize the relationship between genotypes and reproductive success. It is assumed that every genotype has a well-defined replication rate (often referred to as fitness).​

There may be interesting angles from "game theory" though...(ie we have numbers of agents connected in a network, all faced with the same "1 or 1000" scenario....)

Game theory is "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers." wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory​

 

[KitKatMatt]

What happens if we can't choose?

That'd be too much pressure for me.