When I contribute to charity, it’s usually to avoid feeling guilty rather than to feel good as such… imagining myself as being the guy who doesn’t rescue a drowning swimmer because he doesn’t want to get his suit wet isn’t a state I want to be in.
In most books, insurance fraud is morally equivalent to stealing. A deontological moral philosophy might commit you to donating all your disposable income to GiveWell-certified charities while not permitting you to kill yourself for the insurance money. But, yea, utilitarians will have a hard time explaining why they don’t do this.
It is not fraud if it is per contract, and I believe the term to payout in case of suicide is normally well defined. Anyway, we should be able to find a better reason for poster above to choose to live and help than fine points of insurance contracts.
First pass attempt: Surely someone literally willing to die to save others can create a lot of good in life. The poster displays a high level of commitment, forethought, even creativity and willingness to bend systems to output what they want. The poster’s creativity, intellect, force of will, and active work will all have a daily impact on each person around them which money cannot match. Additionally, the $1,000/life is rearward looking and possibly incorrect, and money spent on something is harder to adjust in real time to changing circumstances. The poster with an unfettered will to make systems do what they want and the wherewithal to execute a long-term plan like that could be a meaningful force in the world.
When I contribute to charity, it’s usually to avoid feeling guilty rather than to feel good as such… imagining myself as being the guy who doesn’t rescue a drowning swimmer because he doesn’t want to get his suit wet isn’t a state I want to be in.
These charities can save someone’s life for about $1,000. If you spend $1,000 on anything else, you’ve as good as sentenced someone to death. I find this to be really disturbing, and thinking about it makes think about doing crazy things, such as spending my $20,000 savings on a ten year term life insurance policy worth $10,000,000 and then killing myself and leaving the money to charity. At $1,000 a life, that’s ten thousand lives saved. I suspect that most people who literally give their lives for others don’t get that kind of return on investment.
In most books, insurance fraud is morally equivalent to stealing. A deontological moral philosophy might commit you to donating all your disposable income to GiveWell-certified charities while not permitting you to kill yourself for the insurance money. But, yea, utilitarians will have a hard time explaining why they don’t do this.
It is not fraud if it is per contract, and I believe the term to payout in case of suicide is normally well defined. Anyway, we should be able to find a better reason for poster above to choose to live and help than fine points of insurance contracts.
First pass attempt: Surely someone literally willing to die to save others can create a lot of good in life. The poster displays a high level of commitment, forethought, even creativity and willingness to bend systems to output what they want. The poster’s creativity, intellect, force of will, and active work will all have a daily impact on each person around them which money cannot match. Additionally, the $1,000/life is rearward looking and possibly incorrect, and money spent on something is harder to adjust in real time to changing circumstances. The poster with an unfettered will to make systems do what they want and the wherewithal to execute a long-term plan like that could be a meaningful force in the world.