deleted in protest to really poor moderation
Last edited:
Oniw17 said:What are the circumstances? It depends on which was more fair, which depends on the situation.
Oniw17 said:Then the latter.
James R said:Theoryofrelativity:
Hmmm....
When I posted one of these dilemmas, you complained that they were useless and unrealistic.
What changed your mind?
Oniw17 said:That's the same outline as the last siuation, it's just as fair either way. I was talking about a situation like the one you love is taken hostage and you can sacrifice 20 others from 20 different countries to save him/her. In that situation, I would choose the 20 people.
Theoryofrelativity said:We are consummed with 'numbers ' when it comes to ethical dilemmas,
do you save 1 you love or 20 you do not
note this:
11111111111111111111 v 1
seems like a logical choice to save the group on the left, it looks larger
consider it though this way
Q:
Imagine the 20 are all spread out around the globe, one person in each country. Do you still save the 'one' in each country rather than the 'one' you love who resides in your country?
Each life only has a value of 1
Thus saving 1 life is being compared to saving 20 lots of 1 life, not a super and more valuable '20'
I can only fly one kite at at time, so are 20 kites better for me than one? 20 kites in 20 different locations do not a kite festival make.
TimeTraveler said:I used to think, it would be better to save 20, but
the ones you love are the ones you know, and who would likely save you in the same situation. Save the 1 you love and it's more ethical than saving 20 random people, but if you know these 20 people, and some of them are important to the world, then you save the 20.
I'll go with saving the 1 I know and love. I have a responsibility to protect those I love.
The reason it's unethical to save complete strangers over the 1 you love is because you have a responsibility to protect the 1 you love.
No there not contradictory. In your situation I would sacrifice 20 peope who weren't already in danger, taken from their homes. In my situation, the 20 others are hostages too, and so it's just as fair to serve my own reasoning as it is to serve someone elses. IMO, it's an issue of fairness. It wouldn't be fair to take 20 people unrelated to the situation and to put them in danger, or to death. In the other situation, there is nothing to feel guilty about.Theoryofrelativity said:I see, interesting re-word
the wording is all important it appears, especially given your two different answers and the result being to exterminate 20 in one answer and save 20 in the other. The results are thus contradictory.
Language is a powerful thing yes.
Theoryofrelativity said:my point is also this
each life only has a value of 1
20 lives still only represents 20 lives each with a value of 1, it is not a life with a value of 20.
Thus really numbers should be irrelevant all together, and the people as a value of 1 should be considered, which you have touched on above.
wesmorris said:Each life has the value assigned to it by the person you're asking. Calling it "1" doesn't change that.
20 of unknown value vs. 1 of the highest value.
It's just human nature to go with what you know.