The Covenience Machine

[BrianLanier]

Paul,

1) Are the deaths: a) due to *voluntary use* of the CM after it is made, or b) are they required to *make* the CM?

2) If (a), then I vote yes. If ~(a), then no.

3) If (b), then a follow up question, (b'): are the deaths required to make the CM from *voluntary* employment in a free market with *full* discloser of the risks of employment?

4) If (b'), then I vote yes. If ~(b'), then no.

 

[BrianLanier]

P.S. I thought you had biggers "guns"

 

[reformedcop]

If the convenience machine would allow me to

1. transport into Tom Bombadil's living room
2. sneak up behind him
3. put him in a blood choke to render him unconscious
4. write with indellible marker on his face
5. give him a wet willy
6. transport back out before he came to and got his gun

Then I would definitely vote yes.

My first thought ... "Are you on parole or probation?"

Second thought was ... "Nice selection of books, oooh theres Berkhof's Systmatic Theology!"

Third thought ... "Oh Wow he's has a shotgun!"

 

[Jim Johnston]

P.S. I thought you had biggers "guns"

that was when I was out of shape!

SEE!

It's an up and down battle.

 

[Jim Johnston]

My first thought ... "Are you on parole or probation?"

Second thought was ... "Nice selection of books, oooh theres Berkhof's Systmatic Theology!"

Third thought ... "Oh Wow he's has a shotgun!"

1. Not anymore!

2. Thanks.

3. Remington 870 Magnum

 

[Jim Johnston]

Paul,

1) Are the deaths: a) due to *voluntary use* of the CM after it is made, or b) are they required to *make* the CM?

2) If (a), then I vote yes. If ~(a), then no.

3) If (b), then a follow up question, (b'): are the deaths required to make the CM from *voluntary* employment in a free market with *full* discloser of the risks of employment?

4) If (b'), then I vote yes. If ~(b'), then no.

It's pretty much the same as the automobile.

The main point isn't to get peoples votes. The main point is to discuss the underlying moral assumptions. See if they stand. See what can be learned. See how our attitude or character should change.

 

[Jim Johnston]

For the yes votes, (a) what moral justification is there;

The same moral justification we tacitly utilize every time we use a car

What's that?

I think you are leaving out a significant metric - how many human lives would be saved by this ability to rapidly transport? Think of the stroke and heart attack victims alone and you start to see a positive return.

When making ethical decisions, gathering the facts is important. Have you gathered the facts? How many are saved, how many are dead?

Another is looking at alternatives:

Maybe just first responders should drive?

Maybe all our cars should be made to fo 300 mph. Save more lives.

Maybe everyone should go through medical training and have some basics on hand so they can sustain life until the paramedics could arive?

Again - I look at the potentially overbalancing metric - how many people are saved each year by the first responder enabled by this "convenience machine"?

How many people have you saved?

Aren't we really saying that our convenience is more important that human lives? Get enough people to agree, and live with the side effects. Is this like the social contract theory of ethics?

 

[panta dokimazete]

what kind of ethic is that? What's the name?

Not sure what you are asking? Situational?

Are there any intrinsic evils/goods?

Certainly - why do you ask?

What of the abortionist and euthenasists arguments?

What if the majority understood the risks - some possible misdiagnosis, etc - and voted for convenience?

Who's convenience? Certainly not the baby's or the old person's...

What's the risk vs, reward?

I don't think your analogy works, senor Tom.

What device do we use to measure risk vs. reward?

depends on what the risk and reward is - I'd say morality as the default.

 

[Jim Johnston]

what kind of ethic is that? What's the name?

Not sure what you are asking? Situational?

'cause we're asking questions about moral judgments. One needs ethical theories in terms of which they justify moral judgments.

Certainly - why do you ask?

Because convenience and reward can't remove an intrinsic evil.

Who's convenience? Certainly not the baby's or the old person's...

Certainly not the 5 yr. old who is hit while chasing his ball.

I don't think your analogy works, senor Tom.

Just asking you to justify your belief. You originally voted no. So you prima facie don't think convenience outweighs human life. I voted yes, so I agree with you. Just seeking moral justification.

depends on what the risk and reward is - I'd say morality as the default.

I don't get that. Re-phrase.

 

[reformedcop]

If its analagous to the automobile, should we take into account that a vast majority of automobile related deaths have little or nothing to do with the automobile and everything to do with the "human factor"?

So, will the deaths occur just by using the machine? Or will the deaths be because of operator error when using the machine? If its the former then I vote no.

 

[panta dokimazete]

The same moral justification we tacitly utilize every time we use a car

What's that?

That the risk of driving the car and supporting the automobile industry is worth the benefits we receive.

I think you are leaving out a significant metric - how many human lives would be saved by this ability to rapidly transport? Think of the stroke and heart attack victims alone and you start to see a positive return.

When making ethical decisions, gathering the facts is important. Have you gathered the facts? How many are saved, how many are dead?

You are making the hypothetical - make up a number and we can determine the risk v reward. Objective metrics help make the case.

Another is looking at alternatives:

Maybe just first responders should drive?

Sure - and your entire economy goes down the drain - you also potentially begin to starve the populace. Think about the quantity of ground transport of goods every day...they don't grow the groceries at the store...

Maybe all our cars should be made to fo 300 mph. Save more lives.

nope - you begin to invoke the law of diminishing returns - now if you could make it as safe to drive 300 as you can 65...then the metric is zero net.

Maybe everyone should go through medical training and have some basics on hand so they can sustain life until the paramedics could arive?

not a bad idea - can you imagine the level of effort and cost to do that? again - balance the effort by the return - goes back to how valuable an individual life is...

Again - I look at the potentially overbalancing metric - how many people are saved each year by the first responder enabled by this "convenience machine"?

How many people have you saved?

I dunno - I helped get the communication network up after Katrina - never thought about what that measured in terms of lives saved. I've also helped at the scene of several auto accidents...

Aren't we really saying that our convenience is more important that human lives? Get enough people to agree, and live with the side effects. Is this like the social contract theory of ethics?

To some degree - but you and I, as Christians, would drive the risk v reward metric based on our morality vs. the atheist that could only appeal to the statistics.

Basically what happens today...

 

[Jim Johnston]

If its analagous to the automobile, should we take into account that a vast majority of automobile related deaths have little or nothing to do with the automobile and everything to do with the "human factor"?

So, will the deaths occur just by using the machine? Or will the deaths be because of operator error when using the machine? If its the former then I vote no.

*Some* deaths occur due to "just using" the machine itself, as well as the weather, and other factors

But, yes, the vast majority would be due to the "human factor."

 

[VictorBravo]

I'm in the middle of a class right now otherwise I'd love to jump in some more. But I think trying to analyze by analogizing to vaccines, Katrina, etc, is misplaced. Those fall into the category of either emergency or protection of life--same reason war can be justified. Not so for convenience. If you introduce emergency analysis into ethics as a general rule, it usually messes things up.

It boils down to convenience of the many trumps the life rights of the few--which is exactly the argument used by many in support of abortion.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Dude, you are holding my Mossberg, right? What did you do with the heat shield!

[doctored audio clip of Mel Gibson]GIVE ME BACK MY GUN![/clip]

 

[panta dokimazete]

what kind of ethic is that? What's the name?

Not sure what you are asking? Situational?

'cause we're asking questions about moral judgments. One needs ethical theories in terms of which they justify moral judgments.

Not intimate with ethical theory - I'd say mine are Biblical ethics.

Because convenience and reward can't remove an intrinsic evil.

Is death intrinsically evil?

Certainly not the 5 yr. old who is hit while chasing his ball.

So where do you draw the line? How many 5 year olds benefit from being able to go to school in a bus?

I don't think your analogy works, senor Tom.

Just asking you to justify your belief. You originally voted no. So you prima facie don't think convenience outweighs human life. I voted yes, so I agree with you. Just seeking moral justification.

Again - I first went with my "gut" - my default moral position is: preventable death is preferable to convenience - however, once I began to rationalize potential scenarios and began to quantify the hypothetical rewards associated with the "convenience", I began to realize that the risk-reward metric may be more complex than my knee-jerk reaction. It's all about context.

depends on what the risk and reward is - I'd say morality as the default.

I don't get that. Re-phrase.

Depending upon the risk-reward situation - morality would be the default position - if the moral risk-reward is null or not applicable, then the determining factor could be several - return on investment, customer satisfaction, etc...

at the risk of being perceived as repetitive...It's all about context.

 

[Jim Johnston]

That the risk of driving the car and supporting the automobile industry is worth the benefits we receive.

I've never heard that ethical theory. Why does that make this moral?

You are making the hypothetical - make up a number and we can determine the risk v reward. Objective metrics help make the case.

With you I was specifically talking about cars, a non-hypothetical. I used the hypothetical to draw out some initial responses.

Sure - and your entire economy goes down the drain - you also potentially begin to starve the populace. Think about the quantity of ground transport of goods every day...they don't grow the groceries at the store...

Yeah, sometimes it's a tough road to toe to do the moral thing. What if an economy was built on raping and pillaging other countries. A moral refomer comes along and tells them to stop. They think the benefits worth the risk. But besides that, they tell the reformer, "Yeah, sure, and have our entire economy go down the drain." You're not giving a moral justification.

And, perhaps we can grow our own food. Sure, it'll be hard. But then, 75,000 lives will be saved. Maybe they'll have to go without brand new Nikes because our economy went down the drain, but hey, they'd be alive.

Or, say that we could go back in time. Knowing what we know now, why not lobby against gthe automobile? At that time the economy wasn't bad, and people didn't know about having a Supermarket so they'd not miss much. And, we could still build them, just drive back with horse and wagon?

Have all the alternatives been looked at? Or are we complacent? Do we not want the "inconvenience" of thinking through the issue?

nope - you begin to invoke the law of diminishing returns - now if you could make it as safe to drive 300 as you can 65...then the metric is zero net.

Maybe more lives would be saved. So say we save 10 people driving 65 while we lose 8. Driving 300 might make us loose 13 but we'd save 15. Have you done the math in order to charge me with violation of diminishing returns? And, how do you judge what was diminished in the 75,000 deaths vs. what we got by getting to go to the store &c.?

not a bad idea - can you imagine the level of effort and cost to do that? again - balance the effort by the return - goes back to how valuable an individual life is...

Cost vs. human lives? Are you putting a price on the 75,000? Seems like you keep appealing to more convenience to back up your desire to have convenience.

Aren't we really saying that our convenience is more important that human lives? Get enough people to agree, and live with the side effects. Is this like the social contract theory of ethics?

To some degree - but you and I, as Christians, would drive the risk v reward metric based on our morality vs. the atheist that could only appeal to the statistics.

Basically what happens today...

Why does the Christian morality say that The Social Contract theory is justified? Where does The Christian morality say that our convenience is more important that lives?

 

[BrianLanier]

Paul,

1) Are the deaths: a) due to *voluntary use* of the CM after it is made, or b) are they required to *make* the CM?

2) If (a), then I vote yes. If ~(a), then no.

3) If (b), then a follow up question, (b'): are the deaths required to make the CM from *voluntary* employment in a free market with *full* discloser of the risks of employment?

4) If (b'), then I vote yes. If ~(b'), then no.

It's pretty much the same as the automobile.

The main point isn't to get peoples votes. The main point is to discuss the underlying moral assumptions. See if they stand. See what can be learned. See how our attitude or character should change.

I know, but that was your question.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I'm in the middle of a class right now otherwise I'd love to jump in some more. But I think trying to analyze by analogizing to vaccines, Katrina, etc, is misplaced. Those fall into the category of either emergency or protection of life--same reason war can be justified. Not so for convenience. If you introduce emergency analysis into ethics as a general rule, it usually messes things up.

It boils down to convenience of the many trumps the life rights of the few--which is exactly the argument used by many in support of abortion.

Yah - I think where the analogy breaks here is that the "convenience machine" as Tom has defined it has much more potential benefit factors than just "convenience". We all know that the convenience factor of abortion is HIGH, while the benefit factor is LOW, thus driving a moral decision that the risk is much greater than the reward.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Paul,

1) Are the deaths: a) due to *voluntary use* of the CM after it is made, or b) are they required to *make* the CM?

2) If (a), then I vote yes. If ~(a), then no.

3) If (b), then a follow up question, (b'): are the deaths required to make the CM from *voluntary* employment in a free market with *full* discloser of the risks of employment?

4) If (b'), then I vote yes. If ~(b'), then no.

It's pretty much the same as the automobile.

The main point isn't to get peoples votes. The main point is to discuss the underlying moral assumptions. See if they stand. See what can be learned. See how our attitude or character should change.

I know, but that was your question.

It was, but the context of this thread brought out that there was much more to it than that

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I went ahead and voted "no", even knowing all the discussion gone on.

Why?
1) Honesty. I'm inherently conservative, and would likely be one of those who (having advance knowledge of a whopping hazard) would voluntarily avoid it as too risky. This would mean I also understood the word "vote" as a "personal choice" to involve myself or not in the risky behavior. But also, adding information (such as showing actual likelihood of 1 injury per X usages) would affect my perception of the risk, and lower my resistance to personal involvement.

2) The voting thing. The way the question was first framed, I'd have thought I was imposing an unwanted risk on those 75,000 people. However, if we find that the 75,000 are only a fraction of 7,500,000 voluntary participants, then "voting" on voluntary association still seems flawed to me. But if it is simply the affirmation of preexisting property rights, then I would change and vote "yes".

So, at heart, I do not place the "absolute value" of life ahead of "convenience", because the two are not predicable on a linear scale. The relationships between the concepts are multidimensional, and are subject to wild skewing of the data apart from other necessary concepts such as "liberty" and "property"

 

[Jim Johnston]

Not intimate with ethical theory - I'd say mine are Biblical ethics.

Okay... never read which chapter this was addressed in.

Is death intrinsically evil?

That's my belief.

So where do you draw the line? How many 5 year olds benefit from being able to go to school in a bus?

How many familes benefit economically from their dead Grandmother's will. They could do so much good. Give millions to charity, but, alas, she's a tough old crone, and she's gonna hang on, in a delirious state, for the next 15 years.

And, you're not looking at all the altneratives. Why not home shcool? How many children are spiritually and mentally messed up from the education received in the American public school system?

The question isn't as easy as you're trying to make it.

Again - I first went with my "gut" - my default moral position is: preventable death is preferable to convenience - however, once I began to rationalize potential scenarios and began to quantify the hypothetical rewards associated with the "convenience", I began to realize that the risk-reward metric may be more complex than my knee-jerk reaction. It's all about context.

I've only heard "just so" stories from you and vague appeals to "doing the math" but no hard data. Still seems like you're going with your gut - "It just can't be wrong to drive cars!"

Depending upon the risk-reward situation - morality would be the default position - if the moral risk-reward is null or not applicable, then the determining factor could be several - return on investment, customer satisfaction, etc...

at the risk of being perceived as repetitive...It's all about context.

Sounds Utilitarian. A main problem is when doing the math. No one has been able to compute or measure "risk-reward" or "pleasure-pain" scenarios. Do you have a device that does that? Show your work

the harm 75,000 human lives receive

vs.

the economic et al benefits millions receive

= ?

 

[panta dokimazete]

That the risk of driving the car and supporting the automobile industry is worth the benefits we receive.

I've never heard that ethical theory. Why does that make this moral?

I think you are asking - "How does that make this morally acceptable?"

Honestly, what you are asking - if you are asking for a quantification - would take a significant effort to build a comprehensive decision matrix. What I am saying is that you and I - as Christians - have made the determination that driving an automobile is morally acceptable - that the benefits derived are greater to some factor than the morally objectionable factors.

Yeah, sometimes it's a tough road to toe to do the moral thing. What if an economy was built on raping and pillaging other countries. A moral refomer comes along and tells them to stop. They think the benefits worth the risk. But besides that, they tell the reformer, "Yeah, sure, and have our entire economy go down the drain." You're not giving a moral justification.

Sure I am - "they" reject the moral implication, I don't - raping and pillaging are not morally acceptable.

And, perhaps we can grow our own food. Sure, it'll be hard. But then, 75,000 lives will be saved. Maybe they'll have to go without brand new Nikes because our economy went down the drain, but hey, they'd be alive.

Again, is death inherently evil?

Or, say that we could go back in time. Knowing what we know now, why not lobby against gthe automobile? At that time the economy wasn't bad, and people didn't know about having a Supermarket so they'd not miss much. And, we could still build them, just drive back with horse and wagon?

so...now we are moving into the realm of alternate history? are you trying to collaborate on some historical fiction? (BTW - I reject the many world hypothesis and time travel.)

Have all the alternatives been looked at?

more than likely not, but there is the risk of "analysis paralysis" - that is a decision driver, too.

Or are we complacent?

Probably, in some instances.

Do we not want the "inconvenience" of thinking through the issue?

Again, probably, in some instances - you are speaking in sweeping generalities.

Maybe more lives would be saved. So say we save 10 people driving 65 while we lose 8. Driving 300 might make us loose 13 but we'd save 15. Have you done the math in order to charge me with violation of diminishing returns? And, how do you judge what was diminished in the 75,000 deaths vs. what we got by getting to go to the store &c.?

Again - you make sweeping generalities for a hypothetical situation. Quantify the factors some more and we can discuss the law of diminishing returns. We both know that at some point the objective only helps quantify while morality helps qualify.

Cost vs. human lives? Are you putting a price on the 75,000? Seems like you keep appealing to more convenience to back up your desire to have convenience. Aren't we really saying that our convenience is more important that human lives? Get enough people to agree, and live with the side effects. Is this like the social contract theory of ethics?

So - are you saying no convenience, without exception, is worth even 1 human life? I'd agree if there is no other derivative than convenience as the determining factor.

For example - if it could be conclusively proven that lip balm would cause the death of one human being, I'd vote NAY, based on my moral understanding of benefit vs cost.

To some degree - but you and I, as Christians, would drive the risk v reward metric based on our morality vs. the atheist that could only appeal to the statistics.

Basically what happens today...

Why does the Christian morality say that The Social Contract theory is justified? Where does The Christian morality say that our convenience is more important that lives?

define convenience.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Not intimate with ethical theory - I'd say mine are Biblical ethics.

Okay... never read which chapter this was addressed in.

?

ethics = the study of values - good and bad, right and wrong

Am I misunderstanding? I'd say the Bible from front to back is an ethics guide.

Is death intrinsically evil?

That's my belief.

Not mine - don't suppose you'd like to back that up with some Scripture? Seeking to understand...

How many familes benefit economically from their dead Grandmother's will. They could do so much good. Give millions to charity, but, alas, she's a tough old crone, and she's gonna hang on, in a delirious state, for the next 15 years.

...and our default moral guidance, as Christians, is "NAY". Who are we to judge the length of life or activities that "could be"?

And, you're not looking at all the altneratives. Why not home shcool? How many children are spiritually and mentally messed up from the education received in the American public school system?

And how many have come out just fine? How else will our children understand how to be "in the world, but not of the world" and "lights in the darkness"?

The question isn't as easy as you're trying to make it.

Not trying to make it easy - just dealing with the implications.

Again - I first went with my "gut" - my default moral position is: preventable death is preferable to convenience - however, once I began to rationalize potential scenarios and began to quantify the hypothetical rewards associated with the "convenience", I began to realize that the risk-reward metric may be more complex than my knee-jerk reaction. It's all about context.

I've only heard "just so" stories from you and vague appeals to "doing the math" but no hard data. Still seems like you're going with your gut - "It just can't be wrong to drive cars!"

?? I think you are over-simplifying my position. I am proposing that today we both have made a tacit moral decision (and Tom , I am assuming you do travel by automobile in some capacity) to support the automobile industry - we vote with our feet, if you will.

If you are suggesting that there is some overwhelming moral rationale we have not considered, I am willing to work it out with you, but I am also saying that the risk-reward matrix will be VERY complex, since we are not just discussing convenience, but true benefit, as well.

Depending upon the risk-reward situation - morality would be the default position - if the moral risk-reward is null or not applicable, then the determining factor could be several - return on investment, customer satisfaction, etc...

at the risk of being perceived as repetitive...It's all about context.

Sounds Utilitarian. A main problem is when doing the math. No one has been able to compute or measure "risk-reward" or "pleasure-pain" scenarios. Do you have a device that does that? Show your work

the harm 75,000 human lives receive

vs.

the economic et al benefits millions receive

= ?

hypothetically?

75k dead because of the technology vs 150k saved because of timely travel = net 75k benefit - a no brainer

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I went ahead and voted "no", even knowing all the discussion gone on.

Why?
1) Honesty. I'm inherently conservative, and would likely be one of those who (having advance knowledge of a whopping hazard) would voluntarily avoid it as too risky. This would mean I also understood the word "vote" as a "personal choice" to involve myself or not in the risky behavior. But also, adding information (such as showing actual likelihood of 1 injury per X usages) would affect my perception of the risk, and lower my resistance to personal involvement.

2) The voting thing. The way the question was first framed, I'd have thought I was imposing an unwanted risk on those 75,000 people. However, if we find that the 75,000 are only a fraction of 7,500,000 voluntary participants, then "voting" on voluntary association still seems flawed to me. But if it is simply the affirmation of preexisting property rights, then I would change and vote "yes".

So, at heart, I do not place the "absolute value" of life ahead of "convenience", because the two are not predicable on a linear scale. The relationships between the concepts are multidimensional, and are subject to wild skewing of the data apart from other necessary concepts such as "liberty" and "property"

I guess I wasn't thinking in terms of the voting thing but realized that there was some component here that was kind of tricking the mind into first considering against the idea until it weighted all the other factors.

I also wouldn't have phrased the idea simply by calling it a "convenience machine". If the only thing that the machine does is add convenience to an otherwise lazy person's day then any loss of life simply for the sake of convenience is illegitimate.

I started musing on this because I didn't want to get all fuzzy and indeterminate because I know Paul likes to ask a billion questions. I will say that ethics is a matter of prudence or wisdom and that it doesn't always have a quantitative measure.

What I immediately thought of, however, is the Law regarding Oxes and how you've got to destroy your ox if he gores another ox or gores another person and all the liabilities that the Law brings. Thus, from the general equity of the Law, we know that Oxes are not forbidden. It's not as if God is unaware of the dangers of using a large beast on the farm but he doesn't mollycoddle farmers and tell them they're just going to have to do it all by hand because Oxes sometimes kill people.

Oxes, then, aren't just a "convenience device" but they enhance productivity. If someone was only to approach the use of oxes in farming from the danger aspect then you would only focus on the number of children gored by oxes every year and ask the community to vote on whether or not it was worth allowing farmers to use oxes in farming anymore because the cost in human lives is too high. The question about zoning and what you allow in your community is a legitimate use of the vote or the power of the magistrate after all.

Of course, the magistrate would lack wisdom if he only approached the issue like the Sierra Club and saw every machine or animal used for productivity for the harm that it causes unintentionally at times. In fact, that's why the question immediately raises hackles in the poll because it presents the issue the way someone at PETA would like: "Would you torture an animal just for the convenience of a man...." When you peel back the layer a little you find they're talking about animal testing for new drugs to help in medicinal advances.

I guess I'm sensitive to these statistical discussions because my undergrad was in Nuclear Engineering and I've never been more shocked by the blind irrationalism of people when it comes to a technology. One could ask the question: Is it worth killing people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki just so we can power a lightbulb?

Of course that question would be a twisted way of discussing Nuclear Fission and whether or not it has any other uses. There is always going to be an unethical use of something like fissionable material but some people live in abject fear of Nuclear Energy and think that reactors are just like bombs and could devestate an entire community if somebody just slips up a little bit. They also think that any radiation is a bad thing.

One of my professors was lecturing to some New York state representatives about radiation one time. Before the presentation, he had purchased some ceramic plates that were very commonly sold on shelves. Most people don't know that the earth has a natural "background radiation" to it but marble and ceramic are typically more radioactive. Harmlessly so but don't tell that to an irrationally frightened person.

Anyhow, he first held up a vile with black "marble like" glass in it explaining that he was holding some sand that had been glassified by a Nuclear Weapons test a number of years ago. He placed a geiger counter next to it and it started clicking and the needle rose to the quarter mark based on the sensitivity set. Harmless but oh so scary to them. He asked if any would like to hold the bottle. They recoiled in horror. Let the weirdo hold that stuff right?

He then picked up one of the plates that a female State representative (a Democrat) had been eating from and held the geiger counter next to it. The counter went crazy and it pegged the needle. Still harmless but try telling that to the politicians in the room. One of them left the room to go throw up.

The point is that these kinds of questions can never be asked in a way that is not colored by someone's perceptions either rational or irrational. It's also not unrealistic to assume that the issue will be brought to a vote. If there is going to be a nuclear power plant built in a neighborhood you can be certain that a vote is going to be held no matter how "socialist" that sounds. The bottom line is that everyone uses electricity and some kind of plant is going to need to be built.

The interesting thing about human beings though is that they'd rather have a coal burning plant with mounds of coal that are eminating tons of Carbon 14 radiation naturally (and harmlessly) but you're always going to get the abject fear of a Nuclear Power plant that radiates virtually none.

From the standpoint of benefit to the environment, safety, and sustainability, the Nuclear Power plant would win out as the choice every single time but people prefer the things they know and want to die by their own hand rather than a mysterious technology. Because of this, they force power plants to do risk calculations to figure out the likelihood that 100,000 people would be killed by their plant. When the calculations are completed, the risk is akin to being killed by a meteor falling to the earth and hitting you but people say: "See, this thing can kill 100,000 people" because such risk calculations are never performed on the other things we use in daily life.

 

[Jim Johnston]

I think you are asking - "How does that make this morally acceptable?"

Honestly, what you are asking - if you are asking for a quantification - would take a significant effort to build a comprehensive decision matrix. What I am saying is that you and I - as Christians - have made the determination that driving an automobile is morally acceptable - that the benefits derived are greater to some factor than the morally objectionable factors.

Argumentum ad it'stocomplicatedtoexplainum.

Sure I am - "they" reject the moral implication, I don't - raping and pillaging are not morally acceptable.

Begging the question. You're assuming letting the 75,00 die is moral. If you don't assume that, then your "our economy will go down the drain argument" won't work.

Again, is death inherently evil?

Yes. God is the living God. Christ came to beat death. Sin brought death. God won't annhiliate people, he lets them live forever. Why is death not good? Because you're not living. That's just to say, because you're dead.

so...now we are moving into the realm of alternate history? are you trying to collaborate on some historical fiction? (BTW - I reject the many world hypothesis and time travel.)

That doesn't matter if you reject it. Announcing your rejection isn't a counter argument. And, when debating necessities, like moral truths, thought experiment arguments are valid.

more than likely not, but there is the risk of "analysis paralysis" - that is a decision driver, too.

Then why have I easily brought up so many. You haven't even thought about this until tonight and you've thought of the majority of alternatives. Excuse me while I take a brak and watch my Loch Ness Monster tapes.

Again, probably, in some instances - you are speaking in sweeping generalities.

No, speaking to this exact situation which you've not even begun to try to argue for your position.

Again - you make sweeping generalities for a hypothetical situation. Quantify the factors some more and we can discuss the law of diminishing returns. We both know that at some point the objective only helps quantify while morality helps qualify.

How convenient You are the one who brought up the calculations, I challeneged you to show them, you can't (and haven't), but now you turn it around on me! You said that X was morally permissable because it yields a higher risk-benefit return. I'm asking you to back up that assertion with the numbers. Then you blame me for the failures of your initial highly generalized moral justification.

So - are you saying no convenience, without exception, is worth even 1 human life? I'd agree if there is no other derivative than convenience as the determining factor.

I'm not saying anything. I'm trying to get you to give a cogent argument. When I question premises that doesn't mean I disagree with your conclusion per se, it means I disagree with how you're getting there.

define convenience.

anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort

ethics = the study of values - good and bad, right and wrong

Axiology is the study of values.

Ethics, technically, refers to the process of determining wright and wrong.

Morality has to do with the content of right and wrong.

And, there's more involved...

Am I misunderstanding? I'd say the Bible from front to back is an ethics guide.

Okay, so where's your systematic answer to this situation?

If you want a little help, I'd point out that God made rules about livestock killing or injuring persons. Thus we know that things that made life easier, more economically beneficial, etc., were employed in OT Israel. And we know that these things caused the death of some people. So, build your case. I definately don't think the Israelities were proto-Millites, engaging in some form of primative Utilitarian ethic. Cost benefit analysis and all that.

Not mine - don't suppose you'd like to back that up with some Scripture? Seeking to understand...

There's no verse. I started to above. It's not natural. It's, well, perhaps Woody Allen can help:

Boris: What is it like being dead?

Vladimir Maximovich: It's like - how can I explain it? You know the boiled chicken at Tresky's restaurant?

Boris: Yeah.

Vladimir Maximovich: It's worse.

Scott B. Rae comments on the poorly stated euphemism, Euthenasia - the "good" death - that it may be a "...contradiction in terms. Death is the ultimate indignity, coming as a result of sin and the fall of man. The late protestant ethicist Paul Ramsey suggested that death is something wholly alien to humankind, imposed on man as a consequence of sin. He thus rejected any concept of death that is considered natural and part of the normal cycle of life. Since man in Christ is destined for eternal life, Ramsey argued, death is an indignity, inconsistent with man's eternal destiny in Christ."

Thus if "inherent" is "existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element" and death is always and everywhere an evil, a complete antithesis to the Living Lord, and it is this by its nature, then evil is a permanent and inseperable element of death, therefore it is inherently evil.

Man is made in the image of God. God lives. We live.

...and our default moral guidance, as Christians, is "NAY". Who are we to judge the length of life or activities that "could be"?

And who are you to judge that someone's life is worth less than your convenience, your economical stability, etc?

And how many have come out just fine? How else will our children understand how to be "in the world, but not of the world" and "lights in the darkness"?

You're taking claims from a guy who was homeschooled. Jesus never went to Jerusalem Public School. Sounds self-refuting. And, to say "how else will our children learn" is putative to saying "no way else," thus you're implying that only children who go to public school can learn to be salt and light.

Anyway, the point was to show that there was an alternative that could educate the children and save the lives killed by car accidents.

But, if you must keep your schools and my tax dollars, then let them go to public school in horse and buggy! See, another alternative. You should have known I would say that considering that you have thought about "most" of them.

?? I think you are over-simplifying my position. I am proposing that today we both have made a tacit moral decision (and Tom , I am assuming you do travel by automobile in some capacity) to support the automobile industry - we vote with our feet, if you will.

If you are suggesting that there is some overwhelming moral rationale we have not considered, I am willing to work it out with you, but I am also saying that the risk-reward matrix will be VERY complex, since we are not just discussing convenience, but true benefit, as well.

You're saying that X is more beneficial that Y. I asked you to show me. It's not an oversimplification to call you out on shaky assertions.

hypothetically?

75k dead because of the technology vs 150k saved because of timely travel = net 75k benefit - a no brainer

And this just shows you haven't done much reading in this area. One of the biggest critiques against Utilitarianism isn't going to be solved in a sentence by someone on the PB!

For example, call benefit units hedons.

Now, say that 1 death by automobile accident costs 15 hedons (not to mention that family members etc.,). Then, say that the hedons gained by timely travel was 5. The net cost would be more for the deaths.

The problem is that you don't know how to give rates to these things.

That was one of the problems in "I Robot." They thought they could calculate these kinds of things.

So, if my assigning of the hedons were correct, the cost-benefit argument would fall on the side of the 75K. That's just being sloppy. Of all the things I could include, there's no way you could calculate this. Bahnsen argues that you'd have to be omniscient!

 

[Jim Johnston]

Would the law of double effect come into play here?

That law states that an unintended but foreseen negative consequence of a speciic action does not necessarily make that action immoral.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Honestly, what you are asking - if you are asking for a quantification - would take a significant effort to build a comprehensive decision matrix.

Argumentum ad it'stocomplicatedtoexplainum.

That was one of the problems in "I Robot." They thought they could calculate these kinds of things.

So, if my assigning of the hedons were correct, the cost-benefit argument would fall on the side of the 75K. That's just being sloppy. Of all the things I could include, there's no way you could calculate this. Bahnsen argues that you'd have to be omniscient!

Aren't you arguing from both sides, now?

 

[Jim Johnston]

Honestly, what you are asking - if you are asking for a quantification - would take a significant effort to build a comprehensive decision matrix.

Argumentum ad it'stocomplicatedtoexplainum.

That was one of the problems in "I Robot." They thought they could calculate these kinds of things.

So, if my assigning of the hedons were correct, the cost-benefit argument would fall on the side of the 75K. That's just being sloppy. Of all the things I could include, there's no way you could calculate this. Bahnsen argues that you'd have to be omniscient!

Aren't you arguing from both sides, now?

a) No. But I was never arguing from *a* side, so I could argue for both sides since we're trying to evaluate ethical decisions.

b) Your first quote from me is my made up fallacy for your response,

c) My last quote serves to show the problems you face in making this decision from cost benefit analysis. In this thread you've been *strictly* consequentialist in your ethical decision making. There's nothing wrong with looking at the consequences, but deontologial and virtue ethics need to be brought to bear too.

d) If your bolded part is saying you agree with me, then you just beat your own argument. if you agree with me then you simply used the *talk* of the benefit over the cost as a club to silence your opponent and prove your case. But when pressed, you've not been able to show that your *crucial premise* was true. You don't just get to *assert* that you net more hedons with your view, thsu it is moral. That's what is being debated. So, you *assumed* that you'd net more hedons because "it just can't be wrong to drive my car." SO you've nothing but beg questions here.

 

[LockTheDeadbolt]

Am I one of the 75,000?

More importantly, and completely unrelated, am I one of the 144,000?

 

[VictorBravo]

Tom B. I'm very heartened by your more recent comments. You're hitting on the points I was thinking about last night as I tried to sleep.

The only thing I'll add is that this question mirrors 20th century jurisprudence. The OW Holmes and Karl Llewellyn approach was to toss out the old common law because it was grounded in a sense of fixed principles, and instead apply a "legal-realism" approach leading to positive law. (The legal version of positivism--that is, what is good is what the law says, not the law is good because it reflects good principles).

As I raised the issue at first, and others have hit on, the idea that a law decreeing that some will die for the convenience of many is this form of positivism. (And it is a law because the question proposed a democratic decision that is presumedly implemented by the society). So right off the bat we are following the utilitarian view of the legal usurpers.

Yes, death is inherently evil. A scenario that asks us to determine that someone would die randomly (that is, not according to justice) is accordingly evil too. In that context, risk-reward analysis is a snare.

This in not to say that we shouldn't apply risk-reward analysis to our actions. It is just to say that it has no place in determining this type of question (one in which the direct result of our vote is a cause of someone's death).

Of course in scenarios of war, emergency, etc., such analysis is appropriate. People are going to die anyway and you are trying to figure out how to minimize that.