12 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyYou make an assumption that more money means more happiness. If as you say, this is a genuine philosophical question, go read some Epicurus. He spent his life studying the source of happiness and found that all you need is enough food not to die, shelter and friends. Having more is a bonus only if you understand that it's a frill and can give no happiness in and of itself.
What'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 att I'm just interested in how people would go about thinking about a situation like this.
Compare, when were you happier?... At college with no money, sharing a flat with a few other guys and eating nothing more exciting than beef flavoured noodles. Or with a constant influx of money, but no time to spend it and living alone in a plush, but otherwise empty apartment?
If you want to ask a philosophical question, be sure that your premises are correct. You equate more money with more happiness. Which is false. If you were to rephrase the question into:
A hopeless optimist and a chronic depressive must be chosen between, one to die one to live, your premise would work. As it is now, your making assumptions which don't bear up to scrutiny about the relationship between money and happiness.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyThis is pretty much the optimist/depressive bit, then the obvious choice is to let the optimist live... unless... if you kill the optimist, well, he'll put a positive spin on it anyway (think life of brian), while the depressive may be so relieved that he/she changes their attitude... Nah, it's too much of a gamble.
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 ...[text shortened]... ore, they are morally equivalent - so it's not like one is Hitler and one is Mother Theresa.
Kill the depressive.
I agree with ATY that the situation is so hypothetical as to be virtually pointless. As a philosophical question, it was poorly phrased, having shaky assumptions and also inferring a binary answer was required... "this guy or that guy". There's nothing to argue or discuss here since there are so many conditions tagged onto the original hypothetical situation. Too many "ifs".
12 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonsheesh - did you even read the post of mine that you quoted just above this post? if you're going to try to debate, at least read what has already been contributed. it makes all this Epicurus stuff totally irrelevant to the question.
You make an assumption that more money means more happiness. If as you say, this is a genuine philosophical question, go read some Epicurus. He spent his life studying the source of happiness and found that all you need is enough food not to die, shelter and friends. Having more is a bonus only if you understand that it's a frill and can give no happiness in ...[text shortened]... ssumptions which don't bear up to scrutiny about the relationship between money and happiness.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyYeah, I read it, it's my last post, see where I corrected myself and said that that was more like the optimist/depressive thing I was talking about? I missed it the first time, caught it the second time. It happens, keep your knickers straight.
sheesh - did you even read the post of mine that you quoted just above this post? if you're going to try to debate, at least read what has already been contributed. it makes all this Epicurus stuff totally irrelevant to the question.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by agrysonThis is the post I refer to...
This is pretty much the optimist/depressive bit, then the obvious choice is to let the optimist live... unless... if you kill the optimist, well, he'll put a positive spin on it anyway (think life of brian), while the depressive may be so relieved that he/she changes their attitude... Nah, it's too much of a gamble.
Kill the depressive.
I agree with ATY th ...[text shortened]... e are so many conditions tagged onto the original hypothetical situation. Too many "ifs".
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by agrysonthis is a total bs answer. it's nothing to do with optimism or pessimism - it's not about what they think their prospects are.
This is pretty much the optimist/depressive bit, then the obvious choice is to let the optimist live... unless... if you kill the optimist, well, he'll put a positive spin on it anyway (think life of brian), while the depressive may be so relieved that he/she changes their attitude... Nah, it's too much of a gamble.
Kill the depressive.
I agree with ATY th ...[text shortened]... e are so many conditions tagged onto the original hypothetical situation. Too many "ifs".
look, it's very simple. one guy has everything going for him, enjoys life, and the other has a miserable life with no prospects. in terms of the disutility of their death to other people, they are equal. it's very simple. it's stipulated that one has more to lose by dying than the other. so:
utilitarians will probably say that utility is decreased less by killing the unhappy guy. since the right thing to do is to maximise utility, and one has to die, then the right thing to do is to kill the one whose death will decrease utility less - the unhappy guy.
rights theorists, on the other hand, will probably maintain that both have an equal right to live, and will be neutral on the question as to which is to die.
i really can't put it more simply than that. the premises aren't shaky. it is a binary question, because that's the nature of the question. you can kill this guy and let that guy live, or kill that guy and let this guy live. those are the two choices.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyAs for that last sentence there, that's a problem I referred to. You've changed the original question so much that it isn't asking anything any more. The "Epicurus stuff" is perfectly relevant to the original question posed.
sheesh - did you even read the post of mine that you quoted just above this post? if you're going to try to debate, at least read what has already been contributed. it makes all this Epicurus stuff totally irrelevant to the question.
Now that the goalposts have been moved, there's no longer a question worth debating because now it's "sad guy, happy guy, who should live?" you see that as a debatable question? Gimme a break, the flaw in the original question was pointed out several times by several people, so you changed the original question beyond recognition, if that's what you think debating is, don't try to lecture me on debating.
12 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonactually, it IS about whether the happy guy should be given preference over the unhappy guy. that is what the question is about and i took out the rich/poor stuff because it seemed to be too much of a distraction to people. it is a debatable question, because different widely-held approaches to ethics give different answers to the question, as i've pointed out. which should prevail - the utilitarian or rights-based approach? or something else?
As for that last sentence there, that's a problem I referred to. You've changed the original question so much that it isn't asking anything any more. The "Epicurus stuff" is perfectly relevant to the original question posed.
Now that the goalposts have been moved, there's no longer a question worth debating because now it's "sad guy, happy guy, who should on, if that's what you think debating is, don't try to lecture me on debating.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyNo worries. It's just that the original question focused so much on being rich or not, that being a precursor to happiness. To answer the original question(s):
Ok sorry, it's just a little frustrating to have to repeat myself. and i'm in a bad mood anyway😕
Yes the poor guy and the rich guys life are of equal worth, but if forced between choosing one to die, I would choose the poor guy to die. Not because his life has less worth, but because given no obvious preference between the two, one has to assume the rich guy can provide for more of his needs and wants. Though that is far from a guarantee and you're basically flicking a coin, playing the odds.
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by Iron MonkeySomething else. Every human life has an objective and equal value. Added to this there is a subjective value which depends on the situation one finds themselves in.
actually, it IS about whether the happy guy should be given preference over the unhappy guy. that is what the question is about and i took out the rich/poor stuff because it seemed to be too much of a distraction to people. it is a debatable question, because different widely-held approaches to ethics give different answers to the question, as i've pointed out. which should prevail - the utilitarian or rights-based approach? or something else?
e.g.
X and Y are two twins. All things are equal between them. One could say they have the same "value".
Now, subjectivity starts to play a role...
X forgets to put on his handbrake. His car starts to roll towards Y (who has tehir back turned and does not know what is going on). It is X's fault that Y will die, but X can't stop the car without killing themself. What is the ethically just thing for X to do?
I would argue that while X and Y are objectively equal in terms of the value of their lives, an event came to pass which meant it is more ethical for one to die then the other.
Similarly. X, Y, Z.
X: passerby
Y: person trapped on train tracks
Z: innocent bystander having a nice sandwich on a bridge, oblivious to events around them.
All of the above are equal in terms of age/health etc.
A train is heading for and will kill Y. X has two choices. Do nothing and Y will die, or throw Z in front of the train to stop it and save Y.
As can be seen, while all three have the same objective value, there is a subjective value which changes according to the parameters of the environment and will determine the answer to ethical questions.
12 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyYou are making the assumption that the richer one will naturally enjoy their life more, and basing the argument which one to kill by who actually does enjoy their life more. This implies that poor one should die, even though you made an assumption in the first place.
What'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 att I'm just interested in how people would go about thinking about a situation like this.
You might as well strip out the wealth aspect and ask, "You have two people, one who enjoys their life and one who doesn't. One of them has to die. Disregarding any dependencies, which one should you kill?".
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by lauseythe miserable one obviously has less to lose, so for him death might be a release. in the big scheme of things it actually makes no difference which one dies of course.
You are making the assumption that the richer one will naturally enjoy their life more, and basing the argument which one to kill by who actually does enjoy their life more. This implies that poor one should die, even though you made an assumption in the first place.
You might as well strip out the wealth aspect and ask, "You have two people, one who enjoy ...[text shortened]... doesn't. One of them has to die. Disregarding any dependencies, which one should you kill?".
12 Dec 07
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyI will give you some "utilitarian" reasons for killing both of them.
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.
1. I am a sadist and will enjoy killing them more than they will not enjoy being killed, so killing them will result in the greater good.
2. There are too many people, and overpopulation is a huge problem, so killing them is, again, for the greater good.
3. After I have killed them I can use their stuff, like watches etc, and I will enjoy using them more than their previous owners, again, for the greater good.
So there you are, I'm not really a sadist but my point is that Utilitarianism is not a good philosophy for decision making.
So there you go,
12 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyUtilitarianism should be taken there where it belongs ... to that big pile of sad historical mistakes, to put it mildly, where all the other anti-humanistic ideologies eventually, after making huge amounts of casualties, end up.
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.