Erik said: > Human lives should count equally, unless it is a 1 for 1 conflict, in > which case (if it were up to me) I would make the decision based on > favoritism rather than random selection.
Do you think that presidents and prime ministers should also count lives equally? After all, the US President and the British Prime Minister have been elected to serve the interests of their respective states (actually, the British PM has, strictly speaking, only been elected to serve the interests of his constituency, which is only going to be a hundred thousand or so people). If they shouldn't, then how do we establish an "exchange rate" of lives? (For example, I couldn't see any US President sacrificing a hundred thousand US soldiers to prevent a genocide in, say, Africa, that kills five hundred thousand people.) > Given the conflicting choice between the life of your mother, and the > lives of the mothers of two randomly chosen strangers, would you > choose the 2 unknown lives over the 1 known life (assuming there was > nothing extraordinary about the "known" life, such as being a talented > medical research scientist)? I'd choose my mother every time, of course. (This reminds me of the episode of _The Twilight Zone_ with the magic box with a button that kills someone you don't even know. A young couple are given the box for a week or whatever, and if they press the button during that time they're given a large amount of money. They end up deciding to press the button. The mysterious stranger then returns, gives them the money and tells them ominously that the box will now be given to someone that they don't know, with the implication that their lives are now in the hands of the next recipient.) >> Should I have any rights in the face of this quest for heightened >> utility? How do we assign values to lives? > > It should be one for one. See my first paragraph. Suppose that there's an unpleasant totalitarian regime that is trying to prevent people from leaving. Roughly one in ten people who try to cross the border will be caught and shot. Despite this, many people still try to cross the border. Surely they wouldn't do that unless they considered that their lives outside this state were worth at least ten percent more than their lives inside it, right? Doesn't this mean that the lives of people living in this totalitarian state are worth less than the lives of people on the outside? Or does it just mean that their perceptions of the values of their lives inside and outside differ? If the latter choice, why is there this difference between perceived inequality and actual equality of values? >> Rich, who was suddenly struck with the idea that presidents or prime >> ministers who declare war should have to go to prison for five years >> after their term - that way we could be sure that they really, truly >> believe that the war is worth the price. > > Why just the leaders (if they were elected)? Why not the people who > voted for them? Surely they share in the responsibility? Perhaps, but on the other hand their share in the responsibility is surely much less than that of the people who actually issue the orders. Rich, who wonders if anyone will speak up for rights rather than utility. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
