Are all lives equal in value?

[Florestan]

I premise I reject utterly. 

Any group of 1,000 people will be able to adapt, supplement, or learn, the necessary skills required to survive.  Also, among any group of 1,000 there will be those with adequate talent for art, music, literature, design, construction, legal, medical, etc., to provide some kind of entertainment for the community as well as necessary signage, laws, and other societal needs.

What usually happens is everyone does something and contributes what they can for the benefit of the group. A group need not have experts or the most talented of any field to survive and prosper. In fact, experts and other similarly "talented" people are often the least able to sacrifice for a group's needs, being too ego-driven or in general difficult personalities.

The idea that some lives/people are more valuable is how eugenics began.

I agree 150%.

[Florestan]

experts and other similarly "talented" people are often the least able to sacrifice for a group's needs, being too ego-driven or in general difficult personalities.

This needs to be specially emphasized.

[Florestan]

All other things being equal pulling the leaver is clearly the right thing to do. There's no dilemma.

I'm not so sure. If you didn't pull the lever, five people would die through no fault of your own. If you pulled it, you'd be directly responsible for one death.

The best thing about such scenarios is that they are just that, scenarios... They tell more about people conceiving them than about people supposedly acting on them. 

[Karl Henning]

Sending my best to Karl. I hope you have the aid of an eviction advocacy center and resources in the Boston area.

Thanks, I have had access to legal advice. The process will not be hasty, but I am going to have to find another place to live at the last. The current landlord (who bought the property almost a year ago) has now asked for a rent increase which I cannot agree to. In fairness to the landlord, he is looking for rent in line with the market, so that (unlike the previous landlord, who was borderline psychotic) he's not just being a jerk. That very fact, though (that the Boston area has become such an expensive place to live, over the 25 years we've lived here) makes the search for a place I can afford rather an enormous challenge.

My God, Karl, this is terrifying news. My thoughts and prayers are with you. Wishing you all the best.

Warmly appreciated!

[Mandryka]

I'm not so sure. If you didn't pull the lever, five people would die through no fault of your own. If you pulled it, you'd be directly responsible for one death.

If you didn't pull the lever, five people would die because you didn't pull. If you pulled it, you'd be responsible for saving five lives.

[Florestan]

If you didn't pull the lever, five people would die because you didn't pull. If you pulled it, you'd be responsible for saving five lives.

And who is to decide whether one life is less valuable/more expendable than other lives? This is playing God --- a game I refuse to play.

Fortunately, as I said, this is all a purely theoretical scenario. Neither you nor I will ever have to act on it, God be praised! (pun, if you will...)

[Todd]

All lives are inherently equal and thus possess the same inherent value.  This is distinct from practical skills and abilities that people possess and that would need to be assessed in such a scenario as originally described.  People are complex, possess multiple skills, and can contribute in many ways.  It is not uncommon for, say, "scientists", however defined, to also create art of various sorts.  Some may even be good at it.

More intriguing are practical demographic considerations.  What should the average and median ages be, what percentage of those selected should be women, how many of those women selected should be of child-bearing age, how many should be children under the age of majority (there would absolutely need to be some), that sort of thing.  If the goal is to ensure the survival of humanity, reproduction becomes one of the most important issues.  SciFi plotlines relying on frozen embryos, etc (eg, Interstellar) do not take into account the needs of human development as it actually exists.  An older (eg, median age >30), majority male population would obviously fail. 

Something that is not addressed in the scenario is a description of what cultural artifacts would accompany the lucky ones.  How many would there be, who would select them, using what evaluative criteria, and so on.  Cultural artifacts would inform and influence future social output by the select few, what skills and knowledge would be passed down, what art and knowledge can be immediately accessed by all.  Any society without The Worldly Philosophers or Raiders of the Lost Ark would not be worth living in.

Now, of course, people would never be able to successfully pick the proper mix, so the thousand lucky souls would head off to their death in a far-away place.  This does not even take into account that humans will never travel to other solar systems. 

This is sort of a similar question to the thought experiment about two people are drowning, one an older man who achieved major breakthroughs in medicine and the other, a two year old child who has promise and potential but hasn't accomplished anything.  You can only save one, who would you save - the one who has had a long, successful life already but probably won't discover anything else or the one who has their whole life ahead but might not accomplish anything?

This one is easy to answer because my action would be reflexive: I would save the child.

The idea that some lives/people are more valuable is how eugenics began.

Yep.

[Florestan]

All lives are inherently equal and thus possess the same inherent value.  This is distinct from practical skills and abilities that people possess and that would need to be assessed in such a scenario as originally described.  People are complex, possess multiple skills, and can contribute in many ways.  It is not uncommon for, say, "scientists", however defined, to also create art of various sorts.  Some may even be good at it.

More intriguing are practical demographic considerations.  What should the average and median ages be, what percentage of those selected should be women, how many of those women selected should be of child-bearing age, how many should be children under the age of majority (there would absolutely need to be some), that sort of thing.  If the goal is to ensure the survival of humanity, reproduction becomes one of the most important issues.  SciFi plotlines relying on frozen embryos, etc (eg, Interstellar) do not take into account the needs of human development as it actually exists.  An older (eg, median age >30), majority male population would obviously fail. 

Something that is not addressed in the scenario is a description of what cultural artifacts would accompany the lucky ones.  How many would there be, who would select them, using what evaluative criteria, and so on.  Cultural artifacts would inform and influence future social output by the select few, what skills and knowledge would be passed down, what art and knowledge can be immediately accessed by all.  Any society without The Worldly Philosophers or Raiders of the Lost Ark would not be worth living in.

Now, of course, people would never be able to successfully pick the proper mix, so the thousand lucky souls would head off to their death in a far-away place.  This does not even take into account that humans will never travel to other solar systems. 


This one is easy to answer because my action would be reflexive: I would save the child.


Yep.

It's very rarely for me to publicly and emphatically agree with Todd --- but this is one of those conspicuous cases.

[Mandryka]

By the way I think a more interesting case would be the choice between


1. Saving five people with whom I have no connection  whatsoever

and

2. Saving my own life

[Florestan]

By the way I think a more interesting case would be the choice between


1. Saving five people who I have no connection with whatsoever

and

2. Saving my own life

Well, what would you do?

[Mandryka]

Well, what would you do?

The question is not what would I do, but what should I do. Or rather, which of the choices, if any, are morally required.

I haven't got an answer to that question.

[Mandryka]

Try this one

1. Saving 1000 people with whom I have no connection  whatsoever

and

2. Saving my own life

[AnotherSpin]

The question is not what would I do, but what should I do. Or rather, which of the choices, if any, are morally required.

I haven't got an answer to that question.

If we really choose, especially consciously.

[relm1]

I premise I reject utterly. 

Any group of 1,000 people will be able to adapt, supplement, or learn, the necessary skills required to survive.  Also, among any group of 1,000 there will be those with adequate talent for art, music, literature, design, construction, legal, medical, etc., to provide some kind of entertainment for the community as well as necessary signage, laws, and other societal needs.

What usually happens is everyone does something and contributes what they can for the benefit of the group. A group need not have experts or the most talented of any field to survive and prosper. In fact, experts and other similarly "talented" people are often the least able to sacrifice for a group's needs, being too ego-driven or in general difficult personalities.

The idea that some lives/people are more valuable is how eugenics began.

Hopefully we've learned from Roanoke Colony (1587) and Jamestown (1607), the earliest doomed settlements in America.  If we imagine my hypothetical scenario of a different though earth like planet, I'd imagine it would be way harder than those first colonies.  One of the primary reasons for their doom was lacking diverse enough set of skills needed for survival with little experience in farming, hunting, building in new environments.  Perhaps they could have benefited from resupplies but in the earth 2 scenario, there would never be a resupply.  I'd imagine this means the necessary skills needed for prospering would have to maximize the best chances for survival from the start and learn from lessons of the past. 

[relm1]

Not as yet, but I am facing eviction. The process will take a while, and I hope to find a situation before I must vacate the property.

Yes, like others here, we all wish you all best wishes and good luck.  This is awful news. 

[relm1]

All lives are inherently equal and thus possess the same inherent value.  This is distinct from practical skills and abilities that people possess and that would need to be assessed in such a scenario as originally described.  People are complex, possess multiple skills, and can contribute in many ways.  It is not uncommon for, say, "scientists", however defined, to also create art of various sorts.  Some may even be good at it.

More intriguing are practical demographic considerations.  What should the average and median ages be, what percentage of those selected should be women, how many of those women selected should be of child-bearing age, how many should be children under the age of majority (there would absolutely need to be some), that sort of thing.  If the goal is to ensure the survival of humanity, reproduction becomes one of the most important issues.  SciFi plotlines relying on frozen embryos, etc (eg, Interstellar) do not take into account the needs of human development as it actually exists.  An older (eg, median age >30), majority male population would obviously fail. 

Something that is not addressed in the scenario is a description of what cultural artifacts would accompany the lucky ones.  How many would there be, who would select them, using what evaluative criteria, and so on.  Cultural artifacts would inform and influence future social output by the select few, what skills and knowledge would be passed down, what art and knowledge can be immediately accessed by all.  Any society without The Worldly Philosophers or Raiders of the Lost Ark would not be worth living in.

Now, of course, people would never be able to successfully pick the proper mix, so the thousand lucky souls would head off to their death in a far-away place.  This does not even take into account that humans will never travel to other solar systems. 


This one is easy to answer because my action would be reflexive: I would save the child.


Yep.

Interesting point about artifacts.  I'd imagine it would be similar criteria to who to send and what animals/livestock.  You can't send everything of value so would pick what is most precious to global heritage.  Sort of like how the Golden Record on Voyager was sending a snapshot of "this is who we are" not just at that time.  They picked music, sounds, and images from all over the world and throughout time.  But it was very contained too so they had to exclude very much else.  I'd imagine they'd have a digital copy of the internet or something that at least contained some memorial of the treasures throughout the globe across time.

[Mandryka]

If we really choose, especially consciously.

Sometimes deliberating these choices can't be avoided. An example would be mother/faetus conflict - where a mother has to decide between her interests and the interests of (possibly) more than one faetus she is carrying. Soldiers conscripted into immoral combat also have to make these decisions.

[AnotherSpin]

Sometimes deliberating these choices can't be avoided. An example would be mother/faetus conflict - where a mother has to decide between her interests and the interests of (possibly) more than one faetus she is carrying. Soldiers conscripted into immoral combat also have to make these decisions.

Of course, people entitled to think whatever they want. Like imagining they have freedom of choice. There is not a single nonsense that cannot be thought

[drogulus]

Sometimes deliberating these choices can't be avoided. An example would be mother/faetus conflict - where a mother has to decide between her interests and the interests of (possibly) more than one faetus she is carrying. Soldiers conscripted into immoral combat also have to make these decisions.

     There is no theory of moral choice that can't be broken by the appropriate trolley.