Yep. Ethics is hard.Much harder than just consequences and duty. It requires working on oneself so that one is better placed to make the right decision. — Banno

Who gets to be the judge whether the decision was right or not?

Since the quality criteria here is the same at the both cases (Death), then the next thing we should judge-examine is the quantity criteria.And according to that:Yeah 1 death is preferable than 1+.Seems logical.
It is as simple as that, to my eyes at least.

if a great number of people survive, it seems inevitable that they will lead low-quality lives. — baker

A great number of people do survive. There may be an overpopulation in some places on the planet as well as limited resources. But ethics will always be based on securing, supporting and promoting survival. Because simply this what life wants: to keep on as long as it can and in as much a better condition as it can.

But there's much more to "survival" than that. I might talk about it in some other post ... (I don't want to overload this one.)

But ethics will always be based on securing, supporting and promoting survival. — Alkis Piskas

Hence, eventually: zombies.

But there's much more to "survival" than that. I might talk about it in some other post ... (I don't want to overload this one.)

By all means, do tell. How is it possible to ensure the survival of many without risking a zombie scenario, ie. one where people are living low quality lives, and live just for the sake of living, with no greater purpose?

Thanks, everyone, for your input. This discussion has been helpful.
If anyone is interested, I find the linked paper by Tom Dougherty to be a rather persuasive paper on why the numbers should count.

It has been a common belief for many of us that because of the moral indifference of the situation (that is, that all individuals are equally needy), it seems only rational then to look beyond the loss-to-persons and toward the loss-of-persons.

This paper, in my opinion, does a good job of analyzing our intuitions towards saving the greater number without appealing to consequentialism. Ultimately, Dougherty looks at our rational want to satisfy as many of our altruistic ends as possible. He believes as moral beings, we have a certain moral attitude to want to do so. His paper then claims that we ought to satisfy as many of these ends as possible if we are to act rationally.

This is a rather short and incomplete summary of his argument so I suggest reading the paper! It's a quick read!

https://philpapers.org/archive/DOURNA.pdf

But there's much more to "survival" than that. I might talk about it in some other post ... (I don't want to overload this one.)
— Alkis Piskas
By all means, do tell. — baker

OK, more about "survival" ...

When I say "survival", I don't mean survive just as a body, i.e. "stay alive" or escape danger or death. Although in cases of sickness, threat, war, etc. it might mean just that, as a priority. There is another kind or level of survival beyond that, once that has been secured: "well-being". Happiness and pleasure are also two essential elements in human life. (In animal life too, if you just replace "happiness" with "satisfaction". Also ) But these are still very basic and common to everyone. Their opposite, "misery" and "pain", are leading towards death. There's a whole scale of survival here at work.

Yet, "survival" has a much broader meaning. It pertains to our financial situation, our relation with another person of the opposite sex --including sex itself-- our existence as fathers, employees, members of a group, citizens and human being in general. We need to survive from all these aspects too. Failure to do so, might not mean death, but it could mean poverty, separation or divorce, being dismissed from our job or group, and so on, as parallel and opposite situations of the above.

In short, we are surviving on a scale in various aspects of our life.

How is it possible to ensure the survival of many without risking a zombie scenario, ie. one where people are living low quality lives, and live just for the sake of living, with no greater purpose? — baker

I am not sure what do you mean with "zombie scenario", why do you keep talking about zombies and what does this have to do with anything here ...
Living low quality lives exists everywhere in this planet. I big part of the population on Earth unfortunately try only to continue to breathe and escape death from sickness and hunger. But these are not the only ones who have "no greater purpose". I believe that most people on Earth don't. It's not totally their fault. Purpose is missing from the package of life. Life comes with a command: "Live!". It is to us to make a good use of it. For our benefit.

I agree with you on the problem of the hedonic calculus, which is essentially teleological and the 'numbers game', in deciding which, if one is to chose from more than one other potential beneficiary, is to receive limited lifesaving resources. It too often leads to the tyranny of the masses where a minority, even just of one, must suffer for the benefit of a greater number.

If your synopsis of the paper's author (dogherty) is that we want to save as many lives as possible, it's still consequentialist because of the stated goal. Remember, in Kantian ethics, the only goal is to do the right thing. Here, it's clearly stated that the purpose of any act is to X, Y, or N n-1 outcome(s).

Ah, interesting. Thanks for the link.

On a quick reading,

Moral Ends. When you come across someone in need whom you could help at no cost, you are morally required to have as your end the alleviation of his or her need. When several strangers are equally needy and in all relevant respects alike, you are morally required to consider equally important your ends of the survival of each.

That seems to meet be what Taurek was denying; his point, in part, is that the ceretis paribus clause never applies in the real word' there are always other factors that need be taken into account.

It too often leads to the tyranny of the masses where a minority, even just of one, must suffer for the benefit of a greater number. — gloaming

My thoughts exactly! :cool:

ceretis paribus clause — Banno

Does this clause refer to

1. Another instance of greatest happiness for the greatest number? So I couldn't kill one person, X, to save 5 others (trolley problem) for the reason that X will discover the cure for cancer and save millions of lives. That's again the greatest happiness principle in action, oui?

As is obvious, this doesn't weaken the greatest happiness principle; rather it strengthens it even further.

2. Epistemological difficulties: Can we really predict the future consequences of one's actions? Where do you stop in the chain of causation and deny one's responsible for all effects beyond that?

3. What else?

I find the linked paper by Tom Dougherty to be a rather persuasive paper on why the numbers should count. — Camille

I started reading the article that you brought up. I left it quite frustrated. And because I don't like to speak in generalities ans withoug "why"s, here is why:

The articly is summarized at start as follows:
"First, you are morally required to want the survival of each stranger for its own sake. Secondly, you are rationally required to achieve as many of these ends as possible, if you have these ends."

1) What does "morally required" mean? Why is it reauired? It's just an arbitrary statement, lacking any explanation or arguments.
2) What "ends" does the author refer to do? There are no "ends" formulated.

Then, the authof continues with a moral example-problem:
"You have 100ml of a drug that you own. Two strangers, Anna and Bert, each need 50ml to live. A third stranger, Clare, needs all 100ml to live. The strangers are in all relevant respects alike. You do not stand in any special relationship to these strangers. All else is equal."

Well, there's no problem formulated here. But let's see how this evolves ...

He says: "Most of us think that you ought to save Anna and Bert. John Taurek famously denies this. This is because he rejects the consequentialist rationale that the ‘numbers should count’ because you ought to produce the most good."
Again, I can't see even a single "Why". Why what most of us think is wrong? Then Taurek denies this because because he rejects the consequentialist rationale ... Is that a real why? What is the reason he rejects that?

Then he continues:
"Some non-consequentialists also reject this rationale."
Again, rejection after rejection, without a single why.

"Some non-consequentialists do let goodness-maximising play some role in their theories; they simply limit what this role is. Maybe they say that promoting the good is limited by deontological constraints ... Maybe they say that you have options to behave partially instead of producing the most good ..."

"Some say ...", "Maybe they say..." Really, what does all that offer? Why should any of that be of any importance of interest?

You owe me 5 minutes of lost time! :smile:

When I say "survival", I don't mean survive just as a body, i.e. "stay alive" or escape danger or death. Although in cases of sickness, threat, war, etc. it might mean just that, as a priority. There is another kind or level of survival beyond that, once that has been secured: "well-being". Happiness and pleasure are also two essential elements in human life. (In animal life too, if you just replace "happiness" with "satisfaction". Also ) But these are still very basic and common to everyone. Their opposite, "misery" and "pain", are leading towards death. There's a whole scale of survival here at work.

Yet, "survival" has a much broader meaning. It pertains to our financial situation, our relation with another person of the opposite sex --including sex itself-- our existence as fathers, employees, members of a group, citizens and human being in general. We need to survive from all these aspects too. Failure to do so, might not mean death, but it could mean poverty, separation or divorce, being dismissed from our job or group, and so on, as parallel and opposite situations of the above.

In short, we are surviving on a scale in various aspects of our life. — Alkis Piskas

Sure.

How is it possible to ensure the survival of many without risking a zombie scenario, ie. one where people are living low quality lives, and live just for the sake of living, with no greater purpose?
— baker
I am not sure what do you mean with "zombie scenario", why do you keep talking about zombies and what does this have to do with anything here ...

The concept of zombies concisely illustrates the futility of living merely for the sake of living.

You said earlier

ethics will always be based on securing, supporting and promoting survival — Alkis Piskas

The central element and purpose of ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" is survival: the purpose of life. — Alkis Piskas

The greater number of those who survive, from some point on, the lesser the quality of their lives, due to limited natural resources.

My question is, with such ethical principles as you state above, how do we avoid the scenario in which a great number of people do survive for some duration of time, but they live lives of poor quality?

In practice, two notable solutions have been attempted: debt and reliance on charity or mercy of others.
In order to ensure current wellbeing, there is the practice of indebting oneself (and thus effectively gambling that one will be able to pay off the debt, with interests). Another is to rely on gifts from others, with no specified intention to repay them. Both of these attempted solutions make people rely on things that are not under their control, and as such, are less than feasible.

Purpose is missing from the package of life. Life comes with a command: "Live!". It is to us to make a good use of it. For our benefit.

How is it for our benefit?

(P2) The deaths of the five would not be worse than the death of the one.

I am looking for insight into proving the implausibility of P2. — Camille

Five terrorists vs. one infant.

In order to prove the implausibility of P2, you'd need to leave the realm of politically correct egalitarianism.

Note how the term "tragedy" is nowadays often used to describe a great variety of events happening to a great variety of people. But originally, in the ancient Greek context, tragedy was reserved for royals. One killed royal was a tragedy; a thousand killed commoners was not.

I am not sure if you have read the original paper by Taurek, seems to me that some of your why's could be addressed by reading his original argument that this post concerns. By reading his paper, you will see why Taurek rejects the consequentialist rationale.
Additionally, I believe a lot regarding the different theories and their beliefs on maximization are rather common knowledge, and not needed in further detail the beginning of the paper.
Nonetheless, I see your frustration.

The concept of zombies concisely illustrates the futility of living merely for the sake of living. — baker

I see, OK.

The greater number of those who survive, from some point on, the lesser the quality of their lives, due to limited natural resources. — baker

This can be true in certain cases. Making a lot of children can and does sometimes produce financial problems for the family. But the purpose of, the intention behind making a lot of children, is not for "major good" for more persons. It can be for more happiness for the parents, indifference (not considering the problems such "overproduction"), no contraceptive measures (for various reasons), religion ("Be fruitful and multiply"). etc. There's a irony here, that can be evidenced by seeing poor families --even whole poor areas-- making more children than rich ones. In that case, I would consider such a behaviour even "immoral" or lack or morality at best. I have not made children, for various reasons. One of them was that I could not stand bringing a new life that could be unhappy or suffer from physical problems (abnormalities) or indulged in street drugs (so frequent a phenomenon today), etc. Of course, and fortunately so, relatively few think that way. Otherwise, our race would be extinct! :smile:

with such ethical principles as you state above, how do we avoid the scenario in which a great number of people do survive for some duration of time, but they live lives of poor quality? — baker

The principle based on "greatest number" does not automatically mean produce as many lives as possible, as I explained above. That's why I think that overpopulation (that we are witnessing in a lot of areas of the world today) is actually a product of lack of morality, even maybe immorality. See, "greatest number" and "major good" work together, as I have already mentioned earlier in this thread. I will also add here that the intention of making good or avoiding harm is what counts. Not by accident or in any other way. The poor-multi-child-family example I gave above shows that. The Bible says "Be fruitful and multiply". It doesn't "back it up" with well-being. It doesn't take into consideration "lives of poor quality" that you mentioned. That's why, for me that command-like statement lacks morality. (But of course, it's not the fault or a weakness of the Christian God. He did not write the Bible.)

Purpose is missing from the package of life. Life comes with a command: "Live!". It is to us to make a good use of it. For our benefit.
— Alkis Piskas
How is it for our benefit? — baker

Because we'll be healthier and happier! :smile:

I am not sure if you have read the original paper by Taurek, — Camille

No, I haven't. But see, I would have then to read a whole bunch of literature to find out what it is all about. This would not be me. (But who cares?)

BTW, when myself I present a thesis or subject, I try to offer arguments and/or explanations and/or examples as soon as possible. If you let your readers waiting for that for too long, not only you may lose them, but you also disappoint them, and quite justifiably so.

Additionally, I believe a lot regarding the different theories and their beliefs on maximization are rather common knowledge, and not needed in further detail the beginning of the paper. — Camille

OK.
However, at this point I think I lost the ball ... I don't remember anymore who's against and who's in favor of "number counts" and what are we trying to prove here! :grin:

Nonetheless, I see your frustration. — Camille

Thanks! :smile:

The greater number of those who survive, from some point on, the lesser the quality of their lives, due to limited natural resources.
— baker
This can be true in certain cases. Making a lot of children can and does sometimes produce financial problems for the family. — Alkis Piskas

The topic is about the survival of already existing people, not about producing new people.

The topic is about the survival of already existing people, not about producing new people. — baker

Of course. But you have talked about overpopulation, which is what I understood from "The greater number of those who survive, from some point on, the lesser the quality of their lives" ... Doesn't procreation increase the number of those who survive? Anyway, let's close this subject, if you agree.

Part of the collection of books known as the Christian bible refers to the "love of money" as the "root of all evil".

My premise: that famine, war, plague, poverty, ignorance and tyranny all arise from one primary source: overpopulation. Too many people chasing finite resources. That is the root of all evil.

I'm certainly familiar with the political theory that there are plenty of resources but that a tiny minority of the wealthy are hoarding / controlling them.
While that might be so at the moment, I don't think it acknowledges a basic fact of physics, more energy is lost than gained over time.

Malthus was famously "disproved", but his principle remains valid. Unless we prefer to allow the above-mentioned horrors to continue to correct it, population growth on a finite planet is a literal dead end. Eventually, no more oil, which means no more fertilizer, which means no more food....to cite only one example.

It's asinine to bank on technology pulling a rabbit out of it's hat to save us, much less economic pressure or even political attitudes. It doesn't matter how much you recycle, or economize, if population in the aggregate continues to grow.

Economic pressures, the covid plague, and to a small degree social change are pushing down population right now in the best educated / most capable / wealthiest parts of the world, the West. And guess what the birthrate is like elsewhere? Guess what? You can't make a statistical fact false by attempting to shame it or shout it down as "racist".

What is the point of humanity, of human existence? If you reject superstition, the answer used to be "for my kids to have a somewhat better material life than I did".

The liberals want to blame corporate welfare and military spending, the conservatives want to blame entitlements and taxes. And both want to blame Covid. Whatever their dodging and finger pointing, the economic reality of the present in the west is of a car racing to drive off a cliff. The ability of the majority of young people to afford a house, much less to afford to have children in America, is plummeting.

Democracy can't provide economic or environmental stability in the long term, because it is based on an election cycle that incentivizes damaging short term policies, and is populated by the lowest common denominator; not the wisest, but the most popular, and elected by people who use feelings to make their decisions, not logic. A strong case can be made that so called western democracy is nothing but a sham, really just an oligarchy at this point.

Capitalism is the very opposite of economic or environmental stability in the long term, because it is based on an inevitable boom and bust cycle, and predicated on continual growth, accelerating consumption of finite world resources.

The myth of capitalism as a concept is that it is a pure meritocracy, but as practiced now, nothing could be further from the truth. Those who got there first, cheated the most, exploited the most, rule. Not talent, but an ability to game the system of corporate welfare, lobbying, bribery, gained control of wealth, of power. Donald Trump is not John Galt.

So, what is the point of humanity, beyond your lifespan? If humanity is to survive it has to escape the boundaries of a finite system such as this little planet....but I'm getting ahead of myself.

If you don't accept the supernatural, it's clear that evolution got humanity just so far, and humanity now has a measure of control over it's own evolution.

So, where do we want to go from here? That's the first question. What do we want future mankind to be like, and how do we achieve that?

We can either improve the existing strain of humanity, or breed an entirely new one.

The entire history of religion has been a failed and horrific attempt to train humanity, with the chief result being war, fear and ignorance. Politics has failed in equally catastrophic measure to improve humanity.

There's a story from an ancient culture, perhaps Greece. The society wanted to evolve as a culture, but realized that each new generation was repeating the same mistakes, practicing the same vices, as the previous one. They decided that the only way for their children to create a better society was for them to be removed from the current corrupt one. They selected the wisest most virtuous adult among them, handed over all the children to this one man, and sent them all into the mountains to found a new culture, never to return. That's the end of that story / legend / myth.

Various colonies in America, such as Oneida, and too many other experiments to name, have overtly failed to produce any significant evolutionary improvement in mankind.

Just changing the field your cattle are raised in isn't enough. You can sing to them all you want, you won't get healthier cows.

So, why not do both at the same time? A better environment, and a better strain of genes.

I think we can all agree that congenital defects are a universally bad thing, nothing good about them. It's equally true that they can, reliably, be simply bred out of the human race.

Where things get tricky is improvement. Which traits do we want to breed IN to humanity?

Various methods through history have been used, and still are. In contemporary India, if an infant if born female, it's common for the mother to kill it upon birth......because being female is a burden in that economic environment.

A brief digression: A well meaning western organization decided to help stop the cycle of famine and poverty in India, to curb overpopulation by distributing millions of free condoms. They were dismayed when this did not work. It wasn't that Indian men didn't want to wear condoms, they did. It was that Western condoms are huge, they did not fit on Indian men. No one bothered to check.

Overpopulation, poverty and starvation in Mexico? Just American imperialism to blame? Yet given the option of birth control, similarly from well meaning western charities, it was rejected. Women who tried to go to clinics to get birth control pills or birth control implants were beaten and murdered by men. A man in that culture is not ashamed if his kid are dirty, barefoot, hungry, uneducated. All that matter is his machismo, his pride. A real man does not take care of kids, he breeds as many as he can, he thinks that is a sign of being a "real" man, a MACHISMO.....and the Catholic church of course plays right into this. Because, it used to be an agricultural muscle labor economy worldwide, with no sanitation, with high infant mortality....so they got locked into the insanity of "go forth and multiply".

Eugenics was the law of the land for many years in the United States. The Nazis made an enthusiastic if misguided attempt to breed better people and rid humanity of inferior ones. Communist China introduced a "one child per couple" policy to prevent famine. I mention all of these things to dispel the fallacy that "it cannot be done". It has been done, just not logically or with a coherent goal.

So, what does "superman" look like? A challenging question, but if we turn away from it in cowardice, we leave it to famine, poverty, war and every other historic horror to make the choice for us..

If you gathered a group of apes, and asked them to design the next step in evolution, what would emerge? A man? No. An ape with thicker fur, bigger muscles, stronger teeth. So, several prototypes will have to be tried to get a viable entity , a version of humanity that can outlive the lifespan of this overcrowded polluted starving plague infested planet.

Right now, anyone can have children, as many as they wish. Why? Do we want quantity, or quality?

In order to have a handgun, drive a vehicle, practice as a doctor or lawyer, you have to be licensed, you have to demonstrate some competence and trustworthiness......because doing these things irresponsibly has huge potential negative consequences. Yet the thing with the most potential for harm to the planet and the individual, is having a child......and having kids is a completely unregulated practice.

So, first step is to turn having a child into a PRIVILEGE THAT MUST BE EARNED, not a blank check, the more kids you pop out the more welfare money you get. The cultural shame of being an unwed mother has to come back. The cultural shame of being a deadbeat abandoning dad has to come back, and these have to come back with a VENGEANCE. I live in Washington DC. I know first hand what I am talking about.

Show that you are genetically sound, financially able to provide, not a criminal, not addicted to drugs.
These sound extreme to you? Yet these are only a few of the criteria that many adoption agencies use to filter out unsuitable parent candidates. Why not apply these standards, and more, to everyone?
Ever heard of having to get a blood test in order to get a marriage license? It was to help reduce the passage of sexually transmitted diseases.....in an era when people thought about and cared about fidelity and responsibility and dignity and honor, considered sex something more than just a recreation.

Next, provide incentives for desirable traits to be bred into the human race. We already do this on a small scale, Ivy League college boys paid to donate to sperm banks. On a larger scale, our entire economy is filtering.....if you're part of the One Percent, you can afford kids.....except most of the rich didn't get rich from merit or personal ability.

Well, there is so much more to say, but I'm fatigued. More later, perhaps.

Modern Virtue Ethics proves to be a more sound and comprehensive theory of ethics than Consequentialism.

An individual becomes ethical when he or she regards another individual as precious, as having uncountable value.

That is why murder or doing any sort of harm is wrong. The death on one is tragic for those who loved that person. The killing of more-than-one is even more of a moral violation.

For further details and reasoned argument see the my papers, essays, and booklets. Ask Bing. For your convenience, I'll offer here a safe-to-open link to one of these writings:

http://tinyurl.com/nrnb4t4 ... ....Its title is: HOW ETHICS HELPS US FLOURISH. Happy reading!