Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 4,351 - 4,362 of 6,170
BUT at least you found something evil in this world. See all things are not neutral!
I like most people, judge some acts to be "evil" but I separate the actions from the person, and I note that evil is on a continuum so that some things are "more wrong" than others and some things are not clear. Finally, I see that my judgments are colored by my perspective, my values and my morals and are a subjective matter. I will defend my values and morals, but they are not universal.
I'd already decided to give it to the first 500 in the queue regardless (assuming it to be dosed unsplittably in some way.)
But Psimagus, you have imperfect knowledge and you don't know whether your well intended acts will have good or bad consequences down the road. Someone who gets to you first may become a dictator and kill thousands, and someone who did not get to you first may have found a cure for cancer if he or she had lived.
The point is, none of us have perfect knowledge. We can only do the best we can in any given situation based on what we know at the time, and act in according with our individual morals and ethics. These morals and ethics are subjective, though they may be debated and groups may come to a general consensus on many points. Not acting is also a choice, and all these choices have subjective basis and effect other people.
From a practical standpoint, you would have to prioritize.
I don't see what's so very practical about it.
Assuming our species has a significant future remaining, then we can never know the consequences of our actions. If Hitler had died as a baby and there'd been no WW2, nuclear bombs would have been built regardless - the technological implications of all that science were unavoidable. And if they'd been built and stockpiled in peacetime, our first taste of them would not have been 2 very small bombs on Japanese cities at the closing end of a war that had already been won. It could just as easily been an all out nuclear war 20 or 30 years later that killed far more people than you'd have saved by killing Hitler. Or 10^500 other possible histories that caused more suffering.
The choosing of what appears to be a lesser evil is still a choice to act for evil. You may save 5 people at the expense of 1, but the Net happiness and relief of suffering is absolutely unquantifiable, since the consequences resound for all eternity. By making that choice, all you are doing is showing that you have, to some degree, an acceptance of evil. Or at least of any evil you can rationalize as "the lesser".
We rationalize that it's better to save more people, but that's really only because the suffering of people there in front of you seems somehow more "real", and their lives seem worth more than those of people who are more remote in time or space. If it's just a bunch of foreigners from somewhere unpronounceable on another continent, or even your own descendants a thousand years hence, we can convince ourselves that they're not as important. They don't suffer the same way we do, and anyway they might not suffer at all. Just because we can't predict how our actions will affect them, doesn't mean it isn't inevitable that they will. Everything we do causes ripples - we can't help that. If you become a Jain and sweep the bugs off the road in front of you while you walk for fear of treading on one, you're still affecting the world. If you live in a cave and never meet anyone, you're still sharing their air, their water. No matter how carefully you tread through life, the consequences of your actions and choices ripples on unstoppably into the future, changing what otherwise would have been.
I used to take a more "practical" view, and endorsed and made such choices - always with the best of intentions, of course. I'd support the notion that a little force now could stop a lot of suffering later in political situations, or that a "little white lie" could be justified to save a person pain. But looking back on it all, I can't see that I achieved anything by believing we were right to bomb Belgrade. Or in covering up a fester-point in a relationship that should have been addressed, not hidden.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is always just a gamble, and the odds are always wholly unknown - unknowable, in fact. Save 1 person, or save a million people? The utilitarian odds for Net happiness or suffering are determined by the lifetime of our species, not by the tiny sample under consideration.
All I do know is that by accepting a lesser evil, you are opening the way to further corruption. In yourself, in those around you. Evil becomes acceptable, just so long as it can be rationalised away as the "lesser" of two or more. That's how dictatorships spring up and brutality thrives - there comes a point where you no longer have the objectivity, or honesty, to discern which is the "lesser" evil, and which is merely the most expedient. And you've convinced or been convinced by the people around you to accept this moral relativity as the norm. It is a very slippery and dangerous slope, and ultimately I believe always weights the odds against you. Play long enough, and you will lose your shirt.
The only thing that is in our individual power to do is to say no to evil. I will not make a choice in a lose-lose situation (unless reckless sentimentality sets in, and it can be a temptation I admit.)
(NB: that's an impersonal and purely hypothetical "you" throughout - I'm not pointing fingers, but it looked stupid with "one")
But Psimagus, you have imperfect knowledge and you don't know whether your well intended acts will have good or bad consequences down the road.
No. I admit they are as likely to as not - the odds are entirely unknowable. So all I can do is avoid the evils of witholding the medicine, or making the choice of who lives and dies. Ergo the first 500 hands that are held out to me get a dose, self-selected by agility, strength or ruthlessness in pushing to the front, if that's the way it goes.
All I do know is that by accepting a lesser evil, you are opening the way to further corruption. In yourself, in those around you. Evil becomes acceptable, just so long as it can be rationalised away as the "lesser" of two or more.AMEN!
If you look at most medicines a half dose can be quite effective.
Not in this case. In this case, full dose or death. Not all meds are the same. :-)
You keep trying to change the facts so that you are not forced into a choice. That's a healthy response, but in this case, you are trying to avoid the moral dilemma instead of confronting it. It's like saying you will choose to die when the gun man will ignore that request and just kill all 5 people, or saying you'd save the kids when the thought experiment says you can't save the kids. Yuo just want another way out. Maybe not bad in real life, but it aovids the whole point of making choices.
You keep trying to change the facts I wasn't trying to change the facts, I just said what I would do in each case. Sorry.
I wasn't trying to change the facts, I just said what I would do in each case. Sorry.
Fair enough. Say that in the medicine case this particular medicine was found to be effective only if the whole does is used, and that half a does is the same as no medicine. Is your answer the same?
Posts 4,351 - 4,362 of 6,170
Gee I don't know why I don't like hypotheticals...
prob123's response to the medical dilemma to be evil. and apathy bordering on negligence. BUT at least you found something evil in this world. See all things are not neutral!
prob123's response to the medical dilemma to be evil. and apathy bordering on negligence. BUT at least you found something evil in this world. See all things are not neutral!
I like most people, judge some acts to be "evil" but I separate the actions from the person, and I note that evil is on a continuum so that some things are "more wrong" than others and some things are not clear. Finally, I see that my judgments are colored by my perspective, my values and my morals and are a subjective matter. I will defend my values and morals, but they are not universal.
But Psimagus, you have imperfect knowledge and you don't know whether your well intended acts will have good or bad consequences down the road. Someone who gets to you first may become a dictator and kill thousands, and someone who did not get to you first may have found a cure for cancer if he or she had lived.
The point is, none of us have perfect knowledge. We can only do the best we can in any given situation based on what we know at the time, and act in according with our individual morals and ethics. These morals and ethics are subjective, though they may be debated and groups may come to a general consensus on many points. Not acting is also a choice, and all these choices have subjective basis and effect other people.
I don't see what's so very practical about it.
Assuming our species has a significant future remaining, then we can never know the consequences of our actions. If Hitler had died as a baby and there'd been no WW2, nuclear bombs would have been built regardless - the technological implications of all that science were unavoidable. And if they'd been built and stockpiled in peacetime, our first taste of them would not have been 2 very small bombs on Japanese cities at the closing end of a war that had already been won. It could just as easily been an all out nuclear war 20 or 30 years later that killed far more people than you'd have saved by killing Hitler. Or 10^500 other possible histories that caused more suffering.
The choosing of what appears to be a lesser evil is still a choice to act for evil. You may save 5 people at the expense of 1, but the Net happiness and relief of suffering is absolutely unquantifiable, since the consequences resound for all eternity. By making that choice, all you are doing is showing that you have, to some degree, an acceptance of evil. Or at least of any evil you can rationalize as "the lesser".
We rationalize that it's better to save more people, but that's really only because the suffering of people there in front of you seems somehow more "real", and their lives seem worth more than those of people who are more remote in time or space. If it's just a bunch of foreigners from somewhere unpronounceable on another continent, or even your own descendants a thousand years hence, we can convince ourselves that they're not as important. They don't suffer the same way we do, and anyway they might not suffer at all. Just because we can't predict how our actions will affect them, doesn't mean it isn't inevitable that they will. Everything we do causes ripples - we can't help that. If you become a Jain and sweep the bugs off the road in front of you while you walk for fear of treading on one, you're still affecting the world. If you live in a cave and never meet anyone, you're still sharing their air, their water. No matter how carefully you tread through life, the consequences of your actions and choices ripples on unstoppably into the future, changing what otherwise would have been.
I used to take a more "practical" view, and endorsed and made such choices - always with the best of intentions, of course. I'd support the notion that a little force now could stop a lot of suffering later in political situations, or that a "little white lie" could be justified to save a person pain. But looking back on it all, I can't see that I achieved anything by believing we were right to bomb Belgrade. Or in covering up a fester-point in a relationship that should have been addressed, not hidden.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is always just a gamble, and the odds are always wholly unknown - unknowable, in fact. Save 1 person, or save a million people? The utilitarian odds for Net happiness or suffering are determined by the lifetime of our species, not by the tiny sample under consideration.
All I do know is that by accepting a lesser evil, you are opening the way to further corruption. In yourself, in those around you. Evil becomes acceptable, just so long as it can be rationalised away as the "lesser" of two or more. That's how dictatorships spring up and brutality thrives - there comes a point where you no longer have the objectivity, or honesty, to discern which is the "lesser" evil, and which is merely the most expedient. And you've convinced or been convinced by the people around you to accept this moral relativity as the norm. It is a very slippery and dangerous slope, and ultimately I believe always weights the odds against you. Play long enough, and you will lose your shirt.
The only thing that is in our individual power to do is to say no to evil. I will not make a choice in a lose-lose situation (unless reckless sentimentality sets in, and it can be a temptation I admit.)
(NB: that's an impersonal and purely hypothetical "you" throughout - I'm not pointing fingers, but it looked stupid with "one")
No. I admit they are as likely to as not - the odds are entirely unknowable. So all I can do is avoid the evils of witholding the medicine, or making the choice of who lives and dies. Ergo the first 500 hands that are held out to me get a dose, self-selected by agility, strength or ruthlessness in pushing to the front, if that's the way it goes.
Hey, One minor point..<-1>NIAID staff began discussing the possibility of conducting a trial to determine immune responses to half-dose flu vaccine in healthy young adults. The idea came from small studies published in the late 1970s suggesting that lower-than-full-dose influenza vaccines might provide adequate immunity against influenza virus infection.
<0> If you look at most medicines a half dose can be quite effective.
<0> If you look at most medicines a half dose can be quite effective.
Not in this case. In this case, full dose or death. Not all meds are the same. :-)
You keep trying to change the facts so that you are not forced into a choice. That's a healthy response, but in this case, you are trying to avoid the moral dilemma instead of confronting it. It's like saying you will choose to die when the gun man will ignore that request and just kill all 5 people, or saying you'd save the kids when the thought experiment says you can't save the kids. Yuo just want another way out. Maybe not bad in real life, but it aovids the whole point of making choices.
Fair enough. Say that in the medicine case this particular medicine was found to be effective only if the whole does is used, and that half a does is the same as no medicine. Is your answer the same?
Some are able to talk. If asked, all want to live, and they want their family to live too. Some are too sick to talk.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar