People vs. Property an ethical dilemma

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It's axiomatic that people put a lower value on human lives that are either more geographically distant, socially distant, or even culturally distant.

We then reverse engineer our moral imperatives to accommodate this natural instinct.

I see no evidence to suggest that this mentality is modifiable, so discussing such moral dilemmas is somewhat pointless.

That doesn’t mean it’s morally right. A human life’s value is equal should be a universal maxim. Maybe age dependant at most.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

That doesn’t mean it’s morally right. A human life’s value is equal should be a universal maxim. Maybe age dependant at most.

Suppose the two people are the same age, say 35, but one of them has a fatal condition that means they won't live another month?

Suppose two people are the same age, but one of them is a doctor, and they're in a situation where there are ten other people who need life-saving medical attention around them?

There are plenty of other hypotheticals one could come up with. Would you give the same answer there? Would you also say that the additional information I just gave you should be totally irrelevant?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Suppose the two people are the same age, say 35, but one of them has a fatal condition that means they won't live another month?

Suppose two people are the same age, but one of them is a doctor, and they're in a situation where there are ten other people who need life-saving medical attention around them?

There are plenty of other hypotheticals one could come up with. Would you give the same answer there? Would you also say that the additional information I just gave you should be totally irrelevant?

By age I meant future expected life span.

But I would draw the line and wouldn’t preferentially saving the doctor. Individual life has dignity and value that is not easily measurable. Even the age one is very uncomfortable. Lots of the medical triage decision making does not take this into account at all. I don’t think the edge cases have that much value they would be rare in any system. The value in placing life as sacrosanct is that it prevents equivocation that BoLevi is pointing out where you value life’s that are close to you more than are further away. And just cover up selfish decision making with “moral reasoning”

If we follow the utilitarian path we can kill the useless person to use the organs to save 10 people.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

By age I meant future expected life span.

If that's the case, everyone should have an actuarial calculation done to compute their future life span, so as to demonstrate their life's value. That seems, intuitively, absurd, doesn't it?

Is it really your contention that the thing that makes a life valuable is how long it lasts? I would think most people would be more focused on what happens during the period a person is alive. If individual life has value, would you not value the life of someone who spends it dedicated to helping Doctors Without Borders, and lives 30 years, more than the life of a serial rapist who lives 30 years and a day?

Moreover, does this mean you're opposed to physician assisted dying?

I don’t think the edge cases have that much value they would be rare in any system.

You can't cop out by saying edge cases are rare. If, in the edge cases, your moral theory doesn't hold up, your moral theory is wrong. Especially if you're a deontologist. It's "act only on that maxim that you can at the same time consistently will should be a universal law", not a "universal law with exceptions in rare cases". That completely undermines the entire basis of your position.

The value in placing life as sacrosanct is that it prevents equivocation that BoLevi is pointing out where you value life’s that are close to you more than are further away. And just cover up selfish decision making with “moral reasoning”

Let's just keep it to family members. Do you think there is nothing relevant to be considered there? Do you think that people who believe they owe a greater moral duty to their immediate family - their children and spouse - than they do to strangers are wrong?

If we follow the utilitarian path we can kill the useless person to use the organs to save 10 people.

I'm not sure why you mention utilitarianism at the end? Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems clear that you don't believe that's the correct moral theory so I don't know why you'd bring it up.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GGG

That doesn’t mean it’s morally right. A human life’s value is equal should be a universal maxim. Maybe age dependant at most.

Equal to whom?

Human life is subject to market forces, just like anything else in the world. It' just that most of the time, the "currency" that is applied is proximity (social, familial, geographical).

All of humanity participates in the market, whether we realize it or not. If we didn't, we would forego economic activity that is not essential to survival and use it to provide resources to places where life expectancy is lower and infant mortality is higher. The existence of the Flames, this message board, and your posting on it are all evidence of this, quite literally. Ss I say, it is so obvious now and through history it is axiomatic.

So I disagree with the premise of the OP. I don't think it is a dilemma at all - as the matter is constantly settled and has been settled for probably hundres of thousands of years.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Why do we even care about the bomber's life? If it were my house, I would let the ####er die.

It’s not so simple though, what if the house required significant renovation and your insurance coverage was really good. The bomber might be doing you a favour.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Equal to whom?

Human life is subject to market forces, just like anything else in the world. It' just that most of the time, the "currency" that is applied is proximity (social, familial, geographical).

All of humanity participates in the market, whether we realize it or not. If we didn't, we would forego economic activity that is not essential to survival and use it to provide resources to places where life expectancy is lower and infant mortality is higher. The existence of the Flames, this message board, and your posting on it are all evidence of this, quite literally. Ss I say, it is so obvious now and through history it is axiomatic.

So I disagree with the premise of the OP. I don't think it is a dilemma at all - as the matter is constantly settled and has been settled for probably hundres of thousands of years.

That is how life is currently valued. It is not an ethical way to value life.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

If you could go back in time knowing what you do would you kill baby Hitler? Consider that his death could mean that you would never be born, but ignore for this exercise the fact that if you were never born you wouldn’t be able to go back in time to kill Hitler.

I’d do it.

Ever see the movie The Boys from Brazil? Not a bad flick actually.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Equal to whom?

Human life is subject to market forces, just like anything else in the world. It' just that most of the time, the "currency" that is applied is proximity (social, familial, geographical).

All of humanity participates in the market, whether we realize it or not. If we didn't, we would forego economic activity that is not essential to survival and use it to provide resources to places where life expectancy is lower and infant mortality is higher. The existence of the Flames, this message board, and your posting on it are all evidence of this, quite literally. Ss I say, it is so obvious now and through history it is axiomatic.

So I disagree with the premise of the OP. I don't think it is a dilemma at all - as the matter is constantly settled and has been settled for probably hundres of thousands of years.

I appreciate your answer, I am not sure I am fully grasping your position though. Is it that market forces determine the moral value of people vs. property specific to the context in which they are weighed, by the person doing the weighing?

If so, I am curious? Does your answer to the scenario about what the homeowner should do vary if you put yourself in the position of the homeowner? Ie assume its your house.

Would it be right to assume that the homeowner's actions are justified by their individual relationship to their house?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

That doesn’t mean it’s morally right. A human life’s value is equal should be a universal maxim. Maybe age dependant at most.

I would not equate the life of a terrorist to the life of an innocent. Therefore the terrorist's life is worth less property to save than the life of an innocent as well. If this is a trolley that's either going to hit a house or a person, surely it matters that the person isn't tied to the tracks but created the whole trolley problem in the first place by wilfully standing in the way.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by SebC

I would not equate the life of a terrorist to the life of an innocent. Therefore the terrorist's life is worth less property to save than the life of an innocent as well. If this is a trolley that's either going to hit a house or a person, surely it matters that the person isn't tied to the tracks but created the whole trolley problem in the first place by wilfully standing in the way.

What if the terrorist was about to blow up Adolf Hitler?

[PepsiFree]

What if the bomber is your dad, but he travelled from the past, and if you let him die you won’t be born?

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What if the bomber is your dad, but he travelled from the past, and if you let him die you won’t be born?

Sounds vaguely like the 2000 movie 'Frequency.'

[#-3]

What if its a kitten bomb, and all of your breakables with just be knocked over, and your furniture will be clawed to pieces. But if the bomb doesn't go off the kittens will be trapped in it forever.

(this is why everyon hates philosophers).

[Brendone]

Pre-crime division will solve all of this.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

...
Would it be right to assume that the homeowner's actions are justified by their individual relationship to their house?

I'd say, demanding (or even expecting) rational and reasoned reactions from people faced with unprovoked threat of their property destruction is by itself completely unreasonable. Someone willing to destroy someone else's property takes a chance and deserves whatever reaction happens at that very moment. I have total sympathy for those who lined up the streets to defend their stores and homes from looters and rioters.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

I appreciate your answer, I am not sure I am fully grasping your position though. Is it that market forces determine the moral value of people vs. property specific to the context in which they are weighed, by the person doing the weighing?

If so, I am curious? Does your answer to the scenario about what the homeowner should do vary if you put yourself in the position of the homeowner? Ie assume its your house.

Would it be right to assume that the homeowner's actions are justified by their individual relationship to their house?

I'm not directly addressing the OP's point - I'm disagreeing that there is a dilemma present.

Things we know:

1. People do not value other people's lives equally. I believe this is self evident. (We would not save a stranger instead of our child.)

2. People do not value lives above property. They value some lives above property, depending on their relationship. This is almost a universal truth, with very few exceptions. We know this because almost every individual on the planet does not use their excess financial capacity to maximize the wellbeing of strangers.

So the scenario that the OP defines isn't a dilemma at all. It is simply a single data point in the marketplace. The "decider" in this case, is assessing the value (to the decider) of the human life in question and making a decision.

Some posters here have suggested that human life has a universal and sacrosanct value. This is not an absolute truth, although it is a reflection of how that poster values the life in question here. (My theory is that his view is simply a reflection of the increased value we put on life if we are in close proximity). Humanity has made it quite clear that the value of human life is not absolute, it is relative.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Are you incapable of distinguishing the descriptive from the normative, or do you just not understand the word "ought"?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Are you incapable of distinguishing the descriptive from the normative, or do you just not understand the word "ought"?

It's a specious distinction - unless you want to get into the evolutionary benefit of putting relative values on human life.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Are you incapable of distinguishing the descriptive from the normative, or do you just not understand the word "ought"?

Don’t peter up the thread, dude.