Greatest Good For the Greatest Number or Selfish Interest?

[poolerboy]

Suppose your neighbor comes to you and asks you for a vial of medicine capable of saving the life of his wife. Your husband (or boyfriend, take your pick), however, is suffering from a similar life-threatening problem. Objectively, we could say both humans are equally worthy of being saved, but subjectively you value your husband more and thus, out of self-interest, give the vial to him. Ayn Rand would call this selfishness a virtue and most of us would probably not see much of a problem with such a move.

But what your neighbor's wife was at the brink of discovering a cure for HIV/AIDS or cancer? Objectively, both your wife and his wife have equal value as human qua human, but in terms of human wellbeing, saving his wife rather than your husband could potentially lead to an increase in wellbeing overall since she could save more lives (greatest good for the greatest number; see Utilitarianism). So if you decide to help her instead of your husband you'd accomplish this goal and thus maximize wellbeing; but you, in turn, killed your wife in the process. Most of us would intuitively see this as immoral.

What do you decide and why? Would you consider your choice morally superior?

 

[zoltanspawn]

The notion of utility doesn't capture the anguish one would feel if they chose to sacrifice their beloved, nor probably the joy and gratitude of the beneficiaries.

 

[poolerboy]

Jay, you're unnecessarily parsing the scenario which isn't meant to be scrutinized for its likelihood of occurrence (of course it's flawed!), but rather to illustrate a potential conflict of subjective vs objective morality.

 

[AsianDream]

Jay, you're unnecessarily parsing the scenario which isn't meant to be scrutinized for its likelihood of occurrence (of course it's flawed!), but rather to illustrate a potential conflict of subjective vs objective morality.

I think the “utilitarian” concept of morality as being the “Greatest Good For the Greatest Number of People” is a fundamentally flawed concept.

I am a great believer in the power of mathematics – but this is not a discipline that can be applied to ideas of right and wrong.

If you do an evil thing – I think it is irrelevant whether you do it to one person, 100 people or millions of people – it is equally as bad.

This question is a variation on the theme of the “railroad points” moral dilemma. Where there are four people standing on the track (sure to be killed) – but you can switch the points so the train goes onto a side track and only kills one person instead.

What is wrong about this is making the decision – no one has a right to take a life – even if it means saving four others.

In the original example - you use the vial of medicine for the purpose you got it - because you owe more in terms of positive assistance to those closest to you than to those more distant.

 

[BearBoi]

In scenario A I'd give the vial to my husband. It is natural to look after our own first.

In scenario B I'd leave the choice to him, or, if he were incapacitated or otherwise unable to communicate his wishes, I'd look deep into my heart and do what I'd know he would want. No matter how much it might hurt. (But here is to hoping I married a selfish asshole! hehe)

Why would I not give him the option in scenario A (providing he was in a condition to do so)? Because it is a horrible situation and I'd want to spare him the burden of living his life with the knowledge that a woman died so he could do so. I'd take that onto myself.

 

[poolerboy]

If you do an evil thing – I think it is irrelevant whether you do it to one person, 100 people or millions of people – it is equally as bad.

So would you apply the same punishment to a person who kills one individual as a person who kills 100? The same with theft? The same with any other "evil" or immoral act?

You might find it odious to place a certain value on human life, but consider that there are many cases in which people voluntarily accept increased risks in return for higher pay, such as in working the oil fields or mining, or for time savings in higher speed in automobile travel. These choices can be used to estimate the personal cost people place on increased risk and thus the value to them of reduced risk. There's an economic term called "willingness to accept" which is determined by looking at how much more you would have to pay someone to put them in a position where they are more likely to have bad health outcomes.

This question is a variation on the theme of the “railroad points” moral dilemma. Where there are four people standing on the track (sure to be killed) – but you can switch the points so the train goes onto a side track and only kills one person instead.

What is wrong about this is making the decision – no one has a right to take a life – even if it means saving four others.

How is your negligence to pull the switch to save that life not taking away the life? That's like walking by a pool, seeing a little child drowning and not going in to save him or her. That's taking a life. That it was passive rather than active seems inconsequential. It's an omission.

In the original example - you use the vial of medicine for the purpose you got it - because you owe more in terms of positive assistance to those closest to you than to those more distant.

I thought you argued earlier that you can't place a value on human life. Why are you suddenly applying an increase in value to your spouse than someone else's? How is that any different than applying value based on the presense of more persons?

 

[AsianDream]

So would you apply the same punishment to a person who kills one individual as a person who kills 100? The same with theft? The same with any other "evil" or immoral act?

Yes I would say that the crime is identical - whether you kill one person or many.

While theft is a different crime - again there is no difference in the nature of the crime whether someone steals $1,000 or $10,000. However things like the use of violence make the crime worse - so it is worse to steal $10 from an old lady at knifepoint than to steal $1,000,000 with no intent to use violence (eg: insider trading, bank fraud etc).

Also the intent of the action is what matters rather than the consequence. So if you accidentally leave duct tape covering the pressure sensor tubes on a plane (which is enough to make it very likely to crash) - this may be negligent - but isn't murder - even if 400 people die as a result.

If you block these same tubes deliberately - then it makes no difference to the crime whether the plane crashes with just a crew of 2 on board - or 400 people happen to die as a result.

I thought you argued earlier that you can't place a value on human life. Why are you suddenly applying an increase in value to your spouse than someone else's? How is that any different than applying value based on the presense of more persons?

Because someones spouse (generally) would have a higer value to them than a stranger would.

Otherwise - logically - the greatest good argument says you'd have to consdier if there was anyone in the world who might need it more.

In the same way - when people get their paycheck - they don't consider if this money would be better spent saving lives in the third world (though I guess some really saintly people would).

 

[poolerboy]

Yes I would say that the crime is identical - whether you kill one person or many.

Hypothetical: Your entire family is sequestered. You're placed in a room where you are tied to a chair. You are told that every single family member is going to be killed. However, if you say "mercy" everyone will be spared except for one person (for purposes of this hypothetical, there kidnappers are true to their word). Clearly both options are horrible, but to most people it would be better if most are spared as opposed to none. Would you be indifferent to the outcome? Moreover, would you decline to say "mercy?"

While theft is a different crime - again there is no difference in the nature of the crime whether someone steals $1,000 or $10,000.

Presumably, then, you'd make the punishment the same throughout that range, correct?

Were you aware that applying uniformly heavy punishments for all larceny crimes (in this case "nonviolent" larcenies) will lead to a larger number of major crimes?

Think about the economic principle that all decisions people make are made at the margin. If theft and murder will be punished by the same fate, there is no marginal deterrence to murder. Likewise, if a theft of $5 is met with a punishment of ten years in jail and a theft of $50,000 incurs the same sentence, why not go all the way and steal $50,000? There is no marginal deterrence against committing the bigger theft. So what could've been a smaller crime is now elevated to a larger one using your reasoning.

Because someones spouse (generally) would have a higer value to them than a stranger would.

Otherwise - logically - the greatest good argument says you'd have to consdier if there was anyone in the world who might need it more.

In the same way - when people get their paycheck - they don't consider if this money would be better spent saving lives in the third world (though I guess some really saintly people would).

Well that's the issue isn't it! The point I was trying to lay out was that while we may uncover an objective moral truth -- à la Sam Harris -- it may be the case that we still forego this net benefit for a more selfish interest. The question then becomes: can something be simultaneously moral and immoral? In other words, can something be immoral in an objective sense but moral in an subjective sense?

 

[Kulindahr]

The life at stake is not mine, so it's not my decision to make.

It's his.

 

[hotatlboi]

To a certain extent I think the intent of the person committing the crime is more important than how many people it affects.

Example: let's say person A violates a traffic sign and crashes into another car which kills 5 people. Let's say another person B carries out a premeditated assassination on one person. Both people committed crimes, person A's crime resulted in greater loss of life, however I think most people would agree that person B's crime deserves a greater punishment, since it was his intent to cause greater harm than person A's even though it didn't in the end result.

 

[poolerboy]

The life at stake is not mine, so it's not my decision to make.

It's his.

No, in the hypothetical the vial is your property and thus your decision (since there are two lives at stake).

To a certain extent I think the intent of the person committing the crime is more important than how many people it affects.

Example: let's say person A violates a traffic sign and crashes into another car which kills 5 people. Let's say another person B carries out a premeditated assassination on one person. Both people committed crimes, person A's crime resulted in greater loss of life, however I think most people would agree that person B's crime deserves a greater punishment, since it was his intent to cause greater harm than person A's even though it didn't in the end result.

That's a very interesting perspective, but I don't see how it would fit into the hypothetical in the initial post. If you hand it over to your husband or if you hand it over to your neighbor's wife the intent is presumably the same: to save someone. You may have not intended to kill five people in a car accident, but in the situation I presented where you know your neighbor's wife is at the brink of a medical discovery that will save millions, your decline to hand over the vial to her wouldn't be negligence, just omission (though not in the criminal sense of course).

 

[Kulindahr]

No, in the hypothetical the vial is your property and thus your decision (since there are two lives at stake).

I presume I got the vial for him, so what's at stake is his life. The choice belongs to him.

Now, if I had just happened to have come into possession of a vial which just happened to match what was needed by these two people, something of which I was unaware when I obtained the vial, it might be a bit different -- but not really. I'm in a relationship with him, and not with her; I have assigned to him some measure of ownership over myself, but not to her. Thus I have no business just deciding by myself, as though he were some random person; I have surrendered that privilege by being in a committed relationship.

So the decision is his, no matter how I came by the vial. It has nothing to do with my selfishness or with the relative value of two lives, it has to do with the fact of self-ownership and what happens to that when there's a commitment. By the scenario you gave, the decision isn't mine.

 

[poolerboy]

I'm in a relationship with him, and not with her; I have assigned to him some measure of ownership over myself, but not to her. Thus I have no business just deciding by myself, as though he were some random person; I have surrendered that privilege by being in a committed relationship.

What if it were an adult, independent child of yours. Presumably both of you don't make decisions as a couple and thus the decision would be yours to make, no? What would change in this new scenario?

 

[Kulindahr]

What if it were an adult, independent child of yours. Presumably both of you don't make decisions as a couple and thus the decision would be yours to make, no? What would change in this new scenario?

There's still a certain obligation to the parent-child relationship.

In this case I'd have a talk about it, and reserve the decision. A lot would depend on how many kids I had, any levels of dependency, and other circumstances. But in the end, odds are I'd have to weigh the degree of certainty of the neighbor achieving that cure. If it looked good to me, I think I'd go with the neighbor.

And require that the cure be named for my kid.

 

[poolerboy]

A lot would depend on how many kids I had, any levels of dependency, and other circumstances. But in the end, odds are I'd have to weigh the degree of certainty of the neighbor achieving that cure. If it looked good to me, I think I'd go with the neighbor.

So if the circumstance had him or her in a coma such that you are unable to have a convo with your child on this, would you still consider giving it to your neighbor if you were certain of achieving that cure?

 

[AsianDream]

Were you aware that applying uniformly heavy punishments for all larceny crimes (in this case "nonviolent" larcenies) will lead to a larger number of major crimes?

This may be a reasonable conjecture - but not one that (as far as I know) has ever been proved.

Think about the economic principle that all decisions people make are made at the margin. If theft and murder will be punished by the same fate, there is no marginal deterrence to murder. Likewise, if a theft of $5 is met with a punishment of ten years in jail and a theft of $50,000 incurs the same sentence, why not go all the way and steal $50,000? There is no marginal deterrence against committing the bigger theft. So what could've been a smaller crime is now elevated to a larger one using your reasoning.

I think you forget the basic principle that it is simpler to steal something of small value rather than something of large value. On the other had the act of theft is still the same.

Murder is a much worse evil than theft - but there's still a good argument for this not being related to how many people you happen to murder. In general most legal systems recognise this - so the punishment for murdering one person is much the same as the punishment for killing a million people (either life in prison or death).

Well that's the issue isn't it! The point I was trying to lay out was that while we may uncover an objective moral truth -- à la Sam Harris -- it may be the case that we still forego this net benefit for a more selfish interest. The question then becomes: can something be simultaneously moral and immoral? In other words, can something be immoral in an objective sense but moral in an subjective sense?

I'd start from the position that all morality is subjective - but that there are some universal human ideas of good and evil - which are not based on a mathematical "Greatest Good For the Greatest Number" type of calculation.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have no idea what the source is, but I was into economics a couple of years ago and read an explanation that said uniformly heavy punishments will raise the median 'value' of crimes without increasing those at the top end significantly. I can see that, because someone who might go for a $50 job before might well decide to move up to $500, not believing he has the skill to go for $5000 but figuring it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to make the smaller leap.

 

[bankside]

If my neighbour were on the brink of discovering a cure for HIV, she'd have left notes. Notes which her colleagues would read after they sobered up from her wake.

 

[Kulindahr]

If my neighbour were on the brink of discovering a cure for HIV, she'd have left notes. Notes which her colleagues would read after they sobered up from her wake.

Interesting point.

But what if they weren't up to her level?

 

[AsianDream]

Interesting point.

But what if they weren't up to her level?

the big problem with Hypothetical discussions is ...

That they are purely Hypothetical - and don't relate much to reality.