Cumulative Death

[SteveB28]

It's an interesting proposition.

In my youth, my answer would have been in line with the genetic probabilities stated by Professor Dawkins et al; namely, siblings and children first, followed by grandchildren and cousins, etc.

However, now that my surviving siblings and I are beyond reproductive age (as are most of my children), I find that my emotional response is that I now value the survival of my grandchildren and great-grandchildren and grand nieces and nephews over my own or my siblings or childrens' survival.

And, of course, I value any of these over that of 1000 strangers.

 

[DaisyDay]

In a very real sense, I already do that, chose the one I love, and myself, over numberless strangers. I live in relative luxury while children starve and people die of preventable diseases. I give some, but not all, not enough - so I tend not to think about it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What if you had to watch?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What if your loved one was moments from death in any case?

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

In the film about Turing and his colleagues in WW2 they had to make such a decision.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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?

I would say that you should do what harms you the least, and that I can't determine what that choice is. Only you can.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Shemjaza]

The one I love most would sacrifice herself for 1000 others... so I guess it would be respectful to make that decision.

I'm not sure I could do it, but I know for sure that if I did make that choice, I'd be following her into oblivion right after.

 

[Paradoxum]

Last of Us?

Nope. I could tell you, but it would be a potential spoiler.

 

[Paradoxum]

Sorry, my brain isn't working enough to read and understand all that.

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​

 

[Paradoxum]

What happens if we can't choose?

That'd be too much pressure for me.

Well in the game if you do nothing, the many die.

Personally I chose the one over the many.

But a good point is made later on in thread. Unless you give most of your money to charity, you already choose comfort over the lives of others.

 

[Paradoxum]

In a very real sense, I already do that, chose the one I love, and myself, over numberless strangers. I live in relative luxury while children starve and people die of preventable diseases. I give some, but not all, not enough - so I tend not to think about it.

That's an excellent point. We all pretty much do this anyway, and just for comfort, not even someone we love.

I'm glad you brought this up. I hadn't thought about it this way.

Perhaps we should have moral problems with this, but most people don't care about leaving people to die in other countries (or they just don't think about it).

 

[Paradoxum]

I would say that you should do what harms you the least, and that I can't determine what that choice is. Only you can.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You don't think the other people matter? What about the harm of others?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You don't think the other people matter? What about the harm of others?

Other people matter...to you. You should look to your character and to your principles and do the least harm to yourself in making your decision.

If you can't live with yourself sacrificing your beloved, you may want to save your beloved. If saving your beloved and sacrificing other people means that you can't live with yourself, you may want to save those other people. If you can't live with either decision, you're screwed and there is no good decision.

I realize this doesn't sit well with a utilitarian perspective that views human worth in terms of numbers. It's more of a virtue ethics perspective where one is a good person to the extent to which one has admirable traits of character and decisions flow from this character. People ought to do the best they can as the individuals that they are, and I don't think that there are any easy answers in lifeboat situations which are designed to be inescapably tragic.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

Other people matter...to you. You should look to your character and to your principles and do the least harm to yourself in making your decision.

If you can't live with yourself sacrificing your beloved, you may want to save your beloved. If saving your beloved and sacrificing other people means that you can't live with yourself, you may want to save those other people. If you can't live with either decision, you're screwed and there is no good decision.

I realize this doesn't sit well with a utilitarian perspective that views human worth in terms of numbers. It's more of a virtue ethics perspective where one is a good person to the extent to which one has admirable traits of character and decisions flow from this character. People ought to do the best they can as the individuals that they are, and I don't think that there are any easy answers in lifeboat situations which are designed to be inescapably tragic.

eudaimonia,

Mark

I wouldn't say I'm utilitarian, but I'm not sure this view of yours sounds virtuous. Isn't just doing what makes you feel best selfish, and isn't that a vice?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I wouldn't say I'm utilitarian, but I'm not sure this view of yours sounds virtuous. Isn't just doing what makes you feel best selfish, and isn't that a vice?

No, selfishness -- of a rational sort -- is a virtue. We can call that prudence instead, which can be described as acting on knowledge of one's best interests. Selflessness is the vice.

It isn't really about how it makes one feel, but the objective impact of the decision on oneself. How destructive is the choice on your functioning as an individual? How much does it eat into your principles, your values, your self-respect, your zest for living? This goes far beyond a trivial notion of how one "feels".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

No, selfishness -- of a rational sort -- is a virtue. We can call that prudence instead, which can be described as acting on knowledge of one's best interests. Selflessness is the vice.

I wouldn't say selfishness is prudence. Selfishness tend to mean going beyond what is required for yourself, and taking more than you need.

Selflessness is a vice? So jumping on a grenade for others is bad? I wouldn't say it's an obligation, but it's morally praiseworthy in my opinion.

It isn't really about how it makes one feel, but the objective impact of the decision on oneself. How destructive is the choice on your functioning as an individual? How much does it eat into your principles, your values, your self-respect, your zest for living? This goes far beyond a trivial notion of how one "feels".

That's pretty close to what I meant. Your principles, etc, are feelings if they have no grounding beyond what one wants.

To be honest, this virtue ethics doesn't sound very virtuous. It sounds more like a disguise for self-interest.

If someone doesn't believe in morality, I get that; but I don't see the need to say self-interest is morality.

No offence meant; just voicing my thoughts.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Evolution designed ethic to protect us. Were on the wrong trajectory. Its like "whats your poison?" ----stay away.

What on Ive just been executed by a philosisjeheyawjalkaljak.jn

 

[Eudaimonist]

I wouldn't say selfishness is prudence.

I said of a rational sort. I don't mean selfishness in the irrational, negative sense.

Selfishness tend to mean going beyond what is required for yourself, and taking more than you need.

And that's not what I was defending. I was precisely talking about doing what is required for yourself, taking exactly what you need.

Selflessness is a vice? So jumping on a grenade for others is bad? I wouldn't say it's an obligation, but it's morally praiseworthy in my opinion.

It may be, depending on the circumstances. However, if it was truly morally praiseworthy, I'd call that rationally selfish, i.e., prudent. One died to defend one's values. One cared about one's country, one's family, one's comrades-in-arms, and one's freedom so much that one died to protect those values. That is blessedly "selfish".

To be honest, this virtue ethics doesn't sound very virtuous. It sounds more like a disguise for self-interest.

Self-interest is virtuous if it is wise and justified self-interest. Unfortunately, "selflessness" has been painted as virtuous even though it so often isn't.

If someone doesn't believe in morality, I get that; but I don't see the need to say self-interest is morality.

It is morality because it is normative. It pertains to oughts. Any set of oughts is a morality. There's nothing else to call it.

I have a moral code. This moral code is a set of values. It is based on justified self-interest. It is morality. It is in many ways similar to what people already think of as morality, except stressing how moral people benefit from being moral, instead of emphasizing self-destructiveness and death. My morality isn't death-worship, it upholds life and personal flourishing, even though there can be rare, tragic circumstances in which one might legitimately lose one's life.

No offence meant; just voicing my thoughts.

No offense taken.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Paradoxum]

I said of a rational sort. I don't mean selfishness in the irrational, negative sense.

And that's not what I was defending. I was precisely talking about doing what is required for yourself, taking exactly what you need.

I think I'd call that self-interest, not selfishness.

It may be, depending on the circumstances. However, if it was truly morally praiseworthy, I'd call that rationally selfish, i.e., prudent. One died to defend one's values. One cared about one's country, one's family, one's comrades-in-arms, and one's freedom so much that one died to protect those values. That is blessedly "selfish".

I don't see how acting on one's values is necessarily prudent.

I also wouldn't call it selfish. I'd think most people who do that are thinking of others, not themselves, when doing it.

Self-interest is virtuous if it is wise and justified self-interest. Unfortunately, "selflessness" has been painted as virtuous even though it so often isn't.

I can see how selflessness could be bad, but I'm not sure how it would often be bad.

It is morality because it is normative. It pertains to oughts. Any set of oughts is a morality. There's nothing else to call it.

I don't think self-interest is 'ought' related. I don't avoid hunger because I ought to, I just do it because I want to.

I have a moral code. This moral code is a set of values. It is based on justified self-interest. It is morality. It is in many ways similar to what people already think of as morality, except stressing how moral people benefit from being moral, instead of emphasizing self-destructiveness and death. My morality isn't death-worship, it upholds life and personal flourishing, even though there can be rare, tragic circumstances in which one might legitimately lose one's life.

I wouldn't say my morality is death worship. Sacrifice can be commendable, but I don't think it's often (or perhaps ever) a duty.

 

[farout]

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)

Oh yes, situation ethics again. We seldom if ever are faced with this. But if it were my wife, I have a Covenant Marriage and because I honor my commitment's I would save my wife. No question about it!