I might seem short-sighted but I see a huge difference between the generic “human lives” and “human dies”. Of course I might reconsider when faced with the consequences of extending life of this exact human being, but generally, as a first approximation, I’m choosing his life over death. This is probably the point were we disagree. You refuse to provide any answer to this question without any further knowledge and I have a predefined answer which can be modified only in extreme cases.
Consider keeping a violent dictator of some small country in Africa alive. It’s consequences are not only “one man stays alive” but most certainly also “many thousands of other men die”. This might make me choose his death over life.
The worse part is I can’t really say what happens after he dies (because maybe just some of his fellows take his place).
Re: the violent dictator… as I said initially: “If 1000 more lives are saved, it’s even an emotionally compelling argument.”
Killing a Bad Person to save a thousand Innocent People is a relatively easy emotional equation, and that’s as true of me as it is for you.
As for the point where we disagree… I’m not certain we do disagree, actually.
If you’re asking me about a particular human whose fate is singularly brought to my attention, does it live or die, I almost undoubtedly let it live as long as that doesn’t cost very much to me or anyone I care about, or even if it does if the human is someone I happen know and like.
I don’t think we disagree on this point.
But if you ask me whether “less humans” is better or worse in general, which is what I thought you were asking about, I understand that to be a different question.
I am, right this moment, not raising a child. I’m not even siring one to be raised by others. In fact, I haven’t done either of those things in my life (as far as I know) and am very unlikely to in the future. I know that this results in fewer humans compared to a lifestyle of siring as many children as possible.
If “less humans ⇒ worse”, it follows that I’m choosing to make the world worse.
As I’ve said, I don’t believe that, so that doesn’t bother me. You seem to be claiming that you do believe that (as you say, without the need for any additional knowledge about the situation), so it seems to follow that you believe I’m making the world worse and that I should be siring as many children as possible.
Do you in fact believe that?
My guess is that you don’t, and that we don’t actually disagree as much as you seem to think we do.
I think the appearance of disagreement is in part because you’re switching the question around (from “is fewer humans worse?” to “would I let a human die, given a salient choice?”) in mid-conversation, and comparing my answer to the first question to your answer to the second question.
That might be a deliberate “bait and switch”, but my intuition is that you’re doing that because the question switches around in your own head as you think about it. Of course I don’t know for sure, but that’s a pretty common thing people do when thinking about emotionally difficult questions.
I like your reasoning. I think it clarified my outlook on the issue a lot. Thanks for taking time to over and over explain your view to a less rigorous thinker.
I might seem short-sighted but I see a huge difference between the generic “human lives” and “human dies”. Of course I might reconsider when faced with the consequences of extending life of this exact human being, but generally, as a first approximation, I’m choosing his life over death. This is probably the point were we disagree. You refuse to provide any answer to this question without any further knowledge and I have a predefined answer which can be modified only in extreme cases.
Consider keeping a violent dictator of some small country in Africa alive. It’s consequences are not only “one man stays alive” but most certainly also “many thousands of other men die”. This might make me choose his death over life.
The worse part is I can’t really say what happens after he dies (because maybe just some of his fellows take his place).
Re: the violent dictator… as I said initially: “If 1000 more lives are saved, it’s even an emotionally compelling argument.”
Killing a Bad Person to save a thousand Innocent People is a relatively easy emotional equation, and that’s as true of me as it is for you.
As for the point where we disagree… I’m not certain we do disagree, actually.
If you’re asking me about a particular human whose fate is singularly brought to my attention, does it live or die, I almost undoubtedly let it live as long as that doesn’t cost very much to me or anyone I care about, or even if it does if the human is someone I happen know and like.
I don’t think we disagree on this point.
But if you ask me whether “less humans” is better or worse in general, which is what I thought you were asking about, I understand that to be a different question.
I am, right this moment, not raising a child. I’m not even siring one to be raised by others. In fact, I haven’t done either of those things in my life (as far as I know) and am very unlikely to in the future. I know that this results in fewer humans compared to a lifestyle of siring as many children as possible.
If “less humans ⇒ worse”, it follows that I’m choosing to make the world worse.
As I’ve said, I don’t believe that, so that doesn’t bother me. You seem to be claiming that you do believe that (as you say, without the need for any additional knowledge about the situation), so it seems to follow that you believe I’m making the world worse and that I should be siring as many children as possible.
Do you in fact believe that?
My guess is that you don’t, and that we don’t actually disagree as much as you seem to think we do.
I think the appearance of disagreement is in part because you’re switching the question around (from “is fewer humans worse?” to “would I let a human die, given a salient choice?”) in mid-conversation, and comparing my answer to the first question to your answer to the second question.
That might be a deliberate “bait and switch”, but my intuition is that you’re doing that because the question switches around in your own head as you think about it. Of course I don’t know for sure, but that’s a pretty common thing people do when thinking about emotionally difficult questions.
I like your reasoning. I think it clarified my outlook on the issue a lot. Thanks for taking time to over and over explain your view to a less rigorous thinker.
You are entirely welcome.