In another words. I would vaccinate everybody (the vaccination causes discomfort) to eliminate a deadly disease like Ebola which kills few.
What would you do?
I don’t think you understand the logic behind the anti-speckers’s choice. It isn’t that we always oppose the greater number of minor disutilities. It’s that we believe that there’s an actual judgment to be made given the specific disutilities and numbers involved—you on the other hand just ignore the numbers involved altogether.
I would vaccinate everyone to eradicate Ebola which kills few. But I would not vaccinate everyone to eradicate a different disease that mildly discomforts few only slightly more so than the vaccination process itself.
I don’t think you understand the logic behind the anti-speckers’s choice. It isn’t that we always oppose the greater number of minor disutilities. It’s that we believe that there’s an actual judgment to be made given the specific disutilities and numbers involved—you on the other hand just ignore the numbers involved altogether.
I would vaccinate everyone to eradicate Ebola which kills few. But I would not vaccinate everyone to eradicate a different disease that mildly discomforts few only slightly more so than the vaccination process itself.
The logic is: Integrate two evils through time and eliminate that which has a bigger integral!
I just don’t agree with it.
May I ask if you consider yourself a deontologist, a consequentialist, or something else?