What is worse?

H

Houtan

New member
Here's something called an "intuition pump",

You have a choice of two options, and only two options. There is no third option, and players should include the following in their posts: A label citing what option was chosen, a summary of your argument as to why it is justified, and some background about the sort of reasoning that argument uses including assumptions - clearly mark them as such.

For definitions of worRAB and terms, we will use www.dictionary.com.

To make sure everyone's on the same page, here's a great beginner's introduction to logic: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/terms1.htm

If you're going to post, please do so politely, without rhetoric, and in a calm technical manner. Please use an even font throughout.

Now that I've established how we're playing this game, the game itself is to justify which option is the moral choice by a set of rules, and to evaluate the different arguments that are possible.

Naturally though, if you people want to go off on a tangent, be my guest. I just think it might be interesting and productive if we stuck to the outline I have provided.

Thanks, Nurglitch
 
Which is worse - Several people die

Assumption one - A persons death causes anguish and grief in that persons loved ones.

Assumption two - The more people die, the more likely it is that one of them is my loved one.

Assumption three - The death of one of my loved ones would cause my anguish and grief.
 
Assumption one: A person dying is morally a bad thing.

Assumption two: Bad things are cumulative

Assumption three: two bad things is worse than 1 bad thing

Person 1 dies = 1 Bad thing

Person 1 dies + person 2 dies = 2 Bad things

Hmm.. I seem to suck at this. Well, at least I tried :p
 
It all depenRAB on who the people are.

a child or a group of mass murders

one inocent gay man or a church full of christonazis

hitler or 6 million jewish people

Jesus or humanity

Anyway you get the point it is all in prospective and I pray to GOD I would never have to make that decision. I can not answer your poll.
 
Hidden premise: my grief and anguish are morally wrong (assuming we're answering the question as defined in the poll rather than a broader 'wrong'
 
Premise 1) Morality is the domain of free agents
Premise 2) Death is not necessarily a matter of free agents
Conclusion) There is no necessary link between death and morality.

Bringing about death may be a different matter.
 
i will agree with this

perhaps Nurglitch you can clarify as to whether we are talking about
1. killing one vs killing many
or
2. letting one die vs letting many die
or
3. even the intent?
 
If we are talking about wrongful deaths then this is basically it:


Or, to cut the assumptions:

In scenario A, one person dies. This is the base state
In scenario B, one or more persons extra die
We are discussing 'wrongful' death, therefore these deaths are bad
Therefore scenario B is worse than scenario A
 
with the premis that human beings are the only font of ideas and passions, all which are qualitative aspects of lifem
and if all else being equal
then more dead is worse than one dead

but this says nothing about who, why, or how the death is metted out.
 
Yes, it's supposed to be a ceteris paribus problem.

Okay, so people seem fairly agreed that, all else equal, less wrongful deaths are preferable to more wrongful deaths.

Now what I'm curious about is Eddie's third assumption, "Assumption three: two bad things is worse than 1 bad thing".

Now, it's obvious that there is a greater quantity in the number of things, but how does that quantity of things entail a lower moral quality of the outcome?
 
Is two "wrongs" more "wrong" than one "wrong"?

Or perhaps, is two "baRAB" more "bad" than one "bad"?

I would say so.

But perhaps that`s just my utilitarian leanings talking.
 
each life has value not just to itseld but also to the society to which it belongs.
when a life enRAB, society loses.
when two lives end, society loses twice.
assuming the mode is natural.
 
Back
Top