But (I call back) I already saved one child from the train tracks, and thus I am “unimaginably” far ahead on points. Whether I save the second child, or not, I will still be credited with an “unimaginably” good deed. Thus, I have no further motive to act. Doesn’t sound right, does it?
This isn’t a problem with the claim that a human life is of infinite value as such. It’s a problem with the claim that it’s morally appropriate to attach the concept of comparable value to human lives at all. It’s what happens when you start taking most utilitarians seriously. (For an overview of some of the creepy results you get when you start really applying utilitarianism, check out Derek Parfit’s Reasons and Persons.)
A Kantian would have an easy answer to your infinite moral points. That answer would go something like this: “there’s no such thing as moral points, and it’s not about how good you feel about yourself. There’s a duty to save the kid, so go do it.” And that position is based on the same intuition about the infinite value of persons as the one you quote, but instead of infinity as a mathematical concept, it’s about lexical priority: saving humans (or, generally, treating them as ends, etc.) is simply lexically ahead of all other values. And we can understand that as being what the Talmud really meant.
But (I call back) I already saved one child from the train tracks, and thus I am “unimaginably” far ahead on points. Whether I save the second child, or not, I will still be credited with an “unimaginably” good deed. Thus, I have no further motive to act. Doesn’t sound right, does it?
This isn’t a problem with the claim that a human life is of infinite value as such. It’s a problem with the claim that it’s morally appropriate to attach the concept of comparable value to human lives at all. It’s what happens when you start taking most utilitarians seriously. (For an overview of some of the creepy results you get when you start really applying utilitarianism, check out Derek Parfit’s Reasons and Persons.)
A Kantian would have an easy answer to your infinite moral points. That answer would go something like this: “there’s no such thing as moral points, and it’s not about how good you feel about yourself. There’s a duty to save the kid, so go do it.” And that position is based on the same intuition about the infinite value of persons as the one you quote, but instead of infinity as a mathematical concept, it’s about lexical priority: saving humans (or, generally, treating them as ends, etc.) is simply lexically ahead of all other values. And we can understand that as being what the Talmud really meant.