10 Dec 07
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyThe people you describe are equally wealthy in the most important commodity around -- time. Each has exactly 24 hours per day to spend as they choose -- for good or for ill -- making the world better, or making it worse. The effect of the wealthy on others may be greater -- can be greater, if they choose. But that effect may be greater good or greater evil.
Are the lives of poor people as important as those of rich people?
Suppose there is a rich person who is capable in every way of enjoying his or her life to the maximum, aided by their tremendous wealth. And a person living in grinding poverty, always hungry, sick and cold, and who barely enjoys living at all. It seems that the rich person has far mor ...[text shortened]... ive and which to die, there is a good (utilitarian) reason to let the rich guy live.
Discuss.
God would never make such a choice based on wealth. It is intent that matters.
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyActually, I'd disagree with your first premise about the rich guy obviously going to enjoy life more. If we look at the philosophy of Epicurus, it is found and supported by experience as well as research that happiness does not rely on riches, but on fulfilling the basic needs of the person. That is, food (even if it is simple, just enough to survive on is enough), shelter (simple once more is enough) and friends (I could be rich with money, but with no friends what am I left with?). To be happy does not require riches.
Are the lives of poor people as important as those of rich people?
Suppose there is a rich person who is capable in every way of enjoying his or her life to the maximum, aided by their tremendous wealth. And a person living in grinding poverty, always hungry, sick and cold, and who barely enjoys living at all. It seems that the rich person has far mor ...[text shortened]... ive and which to die, there is a good (utilitarian) reason to let the rich guy live.
Discuss.
It has been shown that someone who became paraplegic in an accident a year ago and a person who won the lottery a year ago, have the exact same level of happiness or contentment one year after the event.
Happiness and thus, the value of life, does not depend on a bank balance, it depends on the character of the individual.
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyI think more than just the person's dependents would suffer for his loss (think friends, parents, co-workers etc). Are you talking about a wealthy hermit vrs. a poor hermit? Because if you are, I'm not sure this is a very useful thought experiment. If anything it shows that utilitarianism, especially utilitarianism of such an abstract sort, is ill suited for making these sorts of value judgements.
Ok, thanks that's a good reply. I should have stipulated that neither has any dependants, so utilitarian arguments need only consider the utility of these particular two people.
10 Dec 07
Also, it seems that, despite advances in technology, poor people are still necessary for production. So it might not be that each individual poor person matches up to each individual rich person, but it is important that poor people as a class exist and are plentiful. Otherwise how would the rich person acquire inexpensive goods?
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by agrysonIs the paraplegic rich or poor? I'd rather be rich with no character (and i do believe i have achieved this) than poor with mucho character and starving. Now get off this Epicurus sillyness (cause you don't practice it anyway) and get back into training. Then again, when i think of The Waltons.........ahhhh, i think i've changed my mind. I just loved that John Boy!
Actually, I'd disagree with your first premise about the rich guy obviously going to enjoy life more. If we look at the philosophy of Epicurus, it is found and supported by experience as well as research that happiness does not rely on riches, but on fulfilling the basic needs of the person. That is, food (even if it is simple, just enough to survive on is e ...[text shortened]... alue of life, does not depend on a bank balance, it depends on the character of the individual.
Granny.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by smw6869Yeah, I hear he was a "dream-boat".
Is the paraplegic rich or poor? I'd rather be rich with no character (and i do believe i have achieved this) than poor with mucho character and starving. Now get off this Epicurus sillyness (cause you don't practice it anyway) and get back into training. Then again, when i think of The Waltons.........ahhhh, i think i've changed my mind. I just loved that John Boy!
Granny.
I suppose I should have answered teh question though...
If I had to kill one of them, I would flick a coin given teh information I have. Being rich or poor doesn't make you a better or a worse person, so it may as well happen as a random event.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by Iron Monkeythis is like the argument about a young persons life being more valuable than an old person's.
Are the lives of poor people as important as those of rich people?
Suppose there is a rich person who is capable in every way of enjoying his or her life to the maximum, aided by their tremendous wealth. And a person living in grinding poverty, always hungry, sick and cold, and who barely enjoys living at all. It seems that the rich person has far mor ...[text shortened]... ive and which to die, there is a good (utilitarian) reason to let the rich guy live.
Discuss.
the word "important" which you used is pretty meaningless, unless it is defined in some real way.
it all depends on who is making the judgement.
11 Dec 07
Originally posted by bjohnson407I'm having no trouble. This sort of argument generally gets put forward by those who don't understand utilitarianism.
I think more than just the person's dependents would suffer for his loss (think friends, parents, co-workers etc). Are you talking about a wealthy hermit vrs. a poor hermit? Because if you are, I'm not sure this is a very useful thought experiment. If anything it shows that utilitarianism, especially utilitarianism of such an abstract sort, is ill suited for making these sorts of value judgements.
12 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonIt's more that I'm stipulating that the rich guy has a greater capacity to enjoy his life than the poor guy, as part of setting up the question. I agree with you that the rich do not always enjoy life more than the poor, and in a way the rich/poor aspect of the question can be done away with. The real question is: if one person enjoys their life significantly more than another, then it would seem they have more to lose by dying. so if we have to choose one to live and one to die, does this consideration give us reason to kill the guy who enjoys his life less? as originally stated, utilitarian arguments need only take into account the utility of these two people, and can disregard the utility of friends, relatives, other dependants, and society in general. also, and i didn't state this before, they are morally equivalent - so it's not like one is Hitler and one is Mother Theresa.
Actually, I'd disagree with your first premise about the rich guy obviously going to enjoy life more. If we look at the philosophy of Epicurus, it is found and supported by experience as well as research that happiness does not rely on riches, but on fulfilling the basic needs of the person. That is, food (even if it is simple, just enough to survive on is e ...[text shortened]... alue of life, does not depend on a bank balance, it depends on the character of the individual.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by agrysonneither person deserves to die. but more utility would be lost by killing the rich happy guy. should this influence our decision?
Yeah, I hear he was a "dream-boat".
I suppose I should have answered teh question though...
If I [b]had to kill one of them, I would flick a coin given teh information I have. Being rich or poor doesn't make you a better or a worse person, so it may as well happen as a random event.[/b]
12 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyYou're creating a bizaare, unrealistic situation because you're trying to get bizaare responses.
It's more that I'm stipulating that the rich guy has a greater capacity to enjoy his life than the poor guy, as part of setting up the question. I agree with you that the rich do not always enjoy life more than the poor, and in a way the rich/poor aspect of the question can be done away with. The real question is: if one person enjoys their life signific ore, they are morally equivalent - so it's not like one is Hitler and one is Mother Theresa.
What if Jesus were to return and begin murdering and worshipping other gods besides himself? THEN WHAT?! OMG the Ten Commandments are flawed!!!!!
See? You get strange responses when you set up strange situations.
IF we remove society, and both people are equally moral, and no one will know that we picked one or the other, bla bla bla...
Then yes, I'd rather kill some poor miserable bastard than someone with a fulfilling life, if some genie or God decided to make me choose. That's my utilitarian response.
Let's suppose we had identical twins with identical personalities. One has AIDS. The other does not. YOU HAVE TO PICK ONE TO DIE.
Well...if I have to pick, I guess I pick the one with AIDS. But these are bizaare situations.
The difference between the two choices is so minor compared with the effect on society that the difference is generally ignored, just like in the Ten Commandments. However utilitarianism is flexible enough to acknowledge that no rule is absolute.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyAs I, the narrator of their lives, is clearly in power over the two subjects:
Are the lives of poor people as important as those of rich people?
Suppose there is a rich person who is capable in every way of enjoying his or her life to the maximum, aided by their tremendous wealth. And a person living in grinding poverty, always hungry, sick and cold, and who barely enjoys living at all. It seems that the rich person has far mor ...[text shortened]... ive and which to die, there is a good (utilitarian) reason to let the rich guy live.
Discuss.
Kill them both, take the wealth and use it as I see fit.
That's utilitarianism.
12 Dec 07
3 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat's so bizarre? One guy has far greater prospects for enjoying his life than the other. Nothing so bizarre there. And we assume they are equal in terms of the disutility their deaths would cause others (that's why we can ignore this - it's equal on both sides of the equation). Again, not a big stretch. The question is constructed this way to focus attention on the core issue: if someone has more to lose by dying than someone else, is this a good reason to choose to keep him alive at the expense of that someone else? or does it make no difference?
You're creating a bizaare, unrealistic situation because you're trying to get bizaare responses.
What if Jesus were to return and begin murdering and worshipping other gods besides himself? THEN WHAT?! OMG the Ten Commandments are flawed!!!!!
See? You get strange responses when you set up strange situations.
IF we remove society, and both peo dments. However utilitarianism is flexible enough to acknowledge that no rule is absolute.
And I'm not angling for a particular answer: Utilitarianism (at least, act utilitarianism)suggests keeping the happier guy alive, but a human rights-based approach would presumably be neutral on the matter. I'm not sure what a Kantian would say, except perhaps that it would be wrong to kill either, but that's not in dispute. It's a genuine philosopical question, and a difficult one. I don't have a pre-prepared answer, I'm just interested in how people would go about thinking about a situation like this.
12 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Iron Monkeyobviously it depends on which has the bigger d*ck 😉
Are the lives of poor people as important as those of rich people?
Suppose there is a rich person who is capable in every way of enjoying his or her life to the maximum, aided by their tremendous wealth. And a person living in grinding poverty, always hungry, sick and cold, and who barely enjoys living at all. It seems that the rich person has far mor ...[text shortened]... ive and which to die, there is a good (utilitarian) reason to let the rich guy live.
Discuss.