Moral dilemma - Page 3

TragicMonkey · 18th January 2021, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The difference is that I will be dead and not able to feel anything.

That's true for every emotion on every subject. What I was asking was whether you now, if gifted with perfect knowledge of the future, would be incapable of anger on matters surrounding your corpse alone, or if you would be equally aloof about all other matters as well. For instance, if your family home were to be purchased by Martin Shkreli and turned into a museum extolling his greatness, or if your last pet outlived you but would be killed by a drunk driver, or if your surviving loved ones were to be swindled by fraudsters and end up in poverty, or your country destroyed in a war.

I suggest that no, you and most people are perfectly capable of having emotional reactions to events past, present, and future hypothetical. And that this is absolutely normal.

Darat · 18th January 2021, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

...snip...

So where does the state get the moral authority to decide what I'm allowed to do with my own body?

Can’t think of any developed country that doesn’t and hasn’t for a long time. There are usually strict regulations of how bodies have to be disposed off, including bits that are cut off or cut out when you are still alive.

Plus in the countries that have an opt-out system you have the exact same options as in an opt-in one.

Darat · 18th January 2021, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

But it does seem to be a "difficult thing to get on board with", or else people would be agreeing with you on the matter, wouldn't they? Scrolling in this thread suggests the opposite.

It doesn’t - the article I linked to touches on it but in places which have adopted opt-out the decision very quickly becomes one that most people believe is an inconsequential decision.

I was about to link to some older stuff I’ve read in the past but as I was searching this article popped up from literally a few days ago about this exact issue:

https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard....onation-us-uk/

Darat · 18th January 2021, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Those people who disagree are more than welcome to opt out.

And as I always say when it comes to ideas of the dead owning or having rights, I am absolutely willing to consider that ownership claim and that claim of rights if the dead start complaining....

TragicMonkey · 18th January 2021, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

And as I always say when it comes to ideas of the dead owning or having rights, I am absolutely willing to consider that ownership claim and that claim of rights if the dead start complaining....

You'd have no objection if someone defiled your grandmother's grave to make a funny TikTok video, then?

Gord_in_Toronto · 18th January 2021, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

You'd have no objection if someone defiled your grandmother's grave to make a funny TikTok video, then?

It is very difficult to object to anything when you are dead. You might have an emotion about something while alive. But I'm with Darat on this.

TragicMonkey · 18th January 2021, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

It is very difficult to object to anything when you are dead. You might have an emotion about something while alive. But I'm with Darat on this.

Again, we are speaking of reactions now to hypothetical future events. Unless you are claiming that you now would have no emotional reaction to finding out something unpleasant will happen in the future after your death?

theprestige · 18th January 2021, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Besides that, the state often gets to incarcerate people if they breach certain parts of a social contract that they never signed, they get to make conditions on certain vaccinations, children are wards of state, etc...

The fundamental principle here is that the state cannot just incarcerate people willy-nilly. The state essentially has to argue for an exception to that rule, and prove to some degree of certainty that an exception is justified in this specific case, for these specific reasons. And if it fails to convince, it must give up the attempt.

This is the opposite of the organ-donor principle, where the state takes over automatically, and the actual owner of the body must take exception. Which is simple enough to do, but... There are plenty of scams and quasi-scams based on the fact that people are much less likely to opt out of a subscription, once they've opted in (or been opted in).

It's a marketing gimmick, exploited by everything from Columbia House to Amazon Prime. These businesses rely on human inattention to increase their revenues. And the government does the same thing - increasing its revenue of human organs.

To me, using marketing tricks to fish in everyone who's not paying attention is much less ethical than only working with people who are paying attention and making an informed choice to participate.

I find it especially interesting - and unethical - for the government in this case to portray it as a success of people choosing to donate, when really it's a success of people being chosen to donate and not noticing.

But yeah, I'm not a fan of governments commoditizing human organs and using state powers to auto-enroll donors and maximize revenues.

Myriad · 18th January 2021, 11:24 AM

Suren, it might be worthwhile to ask a different angle on your original scenario. Suppose you were one of the five people in jeopardy? Assume you're conscious and in no great pain, but you know you and the other four will all die if nothing is done.

Is there any possibility within that scenario that you would volunteer to sacrifice your life and your organs to save the other four? Suppose all the others have young children dependent on them, while your children were grown and successful already. Or suppose the four other were your children. Or alternatively, suppose the five of you are all just random strangers, but for whatever reason you're at peace with the world and you've resigned yourself to dying.

Now, it might not be ethical for the doctors to accept or act upon such an offer, let alone ask you or any of the others to volunteer. Those are separate questions. But is the possibility you would volunteer completely unthinkable on the face of it?

theprestige · 18th January 2021, 11:38 AM

Volunteer to take the fall? Agree to a lottery? Opt out of the lottery and its payoff?

suren · 18th January 2021, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Myriad

Suren, it might be worthwhile to ask a different angle on your original scenario. Suppose you were one of the five people in jeopardy? Assume you're conscious and in no great pain, but you know you and the other four will all die if nothing is done.

Is there any possibility within that scenario that you would volunteer to sacrifice your life and your organs to save the other four? Suppose all the others have young children dependent on them, while your children were grown and successful already. Or suppose the four other were your children. Or alternatively, suppose the five of you are all just random strangers, but for whatever reason you're at peace with the world and you've resigned yourself to dying.

Now, it might not be ethical for the doctors to accept or act upon such an offer, let alone ask you or any of the others to volunteer. Those are separate questions. But is the possibility you would volunteer completely unthinkable on the face of it?

Yes, sacrificing own life is acceptable in this situation. Because it's not somebody's else life.

angrysoba · 18th January 2021, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

The fundamental principle here is that the state cannot just incarcerate people willy-nilly. The state essentially has to argue for an exception to that rule, and prove to some degree of certainty that an exception is justified in this specific case, for these specific reasons. And if it fails to convince, it must give up the attempt.

This is the opposite of the organ-donor principle, where the state takes over automatically, and the actual owner of the body must take exception. Which is simple enough to do, but... There are plenty of scams and quasi-scams based on the fact that people are much less likely to opt out of a subscription, once they've opted in (or been opted in).

It's a marketing gimmick, exploited by everything from Columbia House to Amazon Prime. These businesses rely on human inattention to increase their revenues. And the government does the same thing - increasing its revenue of human organs.

To me, using marketing tricks to fish in everyone who's not paying attention is much less ethical than only working with people who are paying attention and making an informed choice to participate.

I find it especially interesting - and unethical - for the government in this case to portray it as a success of people choosing to donate, when really it's a success of people being chosen to donate and not noticing.

But yeah, I'm not a fan of governments commoditizing human organs and using state powers to auto-enroll donors and maximize revenues.

I don't know where this highlighted bit comes in. Presumably this assumes a for-profit healthcare system, which was not one of my assumptions.

In my view, opt-out simply has beneficial health outcomes, so the status quo bias is set at "better health outcomes" and those who object to better health outcomes still get to change the settings if they prefer.

dann · 18th January 2021, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by suren

Imagine there are 5 dying unconscious patients with various organ failures (heart, lung, kidney, etc.). There is a possibility to kill one of them and use his organs to save the other 4. There is no possibility of preference for a victim based on rationality, i.e. we can choose the victim randomly at best.

Is it acceptable to kill someone for the sake of saving others?

Imagine that 500,000 people are going to die within the next year with various organ failures (heart, lung, kidney, etc.). It is possible to save the vast majority of them, but you imagine that it may be at the expense of business and your political career.

Is it acceptable to kill 500,000 people for the sake of business and political careers?

Sorry, but I just can't stand those imaginary dilemmas.

arthwollipot · 18th January 2021, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

That's true for every emotion on every subject. What I was asking was whether you now, if gifted with perfect knowledge of the future, would be incapable of anger on matters surrounding your corpse alone, or if you would be equally aloof about all other matters as well. For instance, if your family home were to be purchased by Martin Shkreli and turned into a museum extolling his greatness, or if your last pet outlived you but would be killed by a drunk driver, or if your surviving loved ones were to be swindled by fraudsters and end up in poverty, or your country destroyed in a war.

I suggest that no, you and most people are perfectly capable of having emotional reactions to events past, present, and future hypothetical. And that this is absolutely normal.

Of course I might object now to things that might happen after I'm dead. My son knows how I want my body to be disposed of, for example. And I feel confident that he will comply with my wishes in that matter. However, if he doesn't, then I will neither have any control over that, nor will I be capable of feeling upset or angry about it.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

You'd have no objection if someone defiled your grandmother's grave to make a funny TikTok video, then?

I would have an objection about that, yes. My grandmother would not.

rockinkt · 18th January 2021, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by suren

Imagine there are 5 dying unconscious patients with various organ failures (heart, lung, kidney, etc.). There is a possibility to kill one of them and use his organs to save the other 4. There is no possibility of preference for a victim based on rationality, i.e. we can choose the victim randomly at best.

Is it acceptable to kill someone for the sake of saving others?

Some people might argue that we should leave them to die since we are committing murder which is by itself is very immoral. But what if we were in a similar situation with 100 or even 1000 (both are unrealistic but let's ignore this for the sake of the thought experiment) dying patients instead of 5? Can this number reach to some point where killing 1 person becomes more rational/moral?

The first medical professional to argue that one of the patients should be killed to save the others should be immediately killed and his/her organs used to save the five.
That way - all five are saved instead of only four and the person so willing to sacrifice another is him/herself sacrificed and can die happy as a great example to all.

TragicMonkey · 18th January 2021, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Of course I might object now to things that might happen after I'm dead. My son knows how I want my body to be disposed of, for example. And I feel confident that he will comply with my wishes in that matter. However, if he doesn't, then I will neither have any control over that, nor will I be capable of feeling upset or angry about it.

Then you won't be capable of feeling upset or angry. But if your son told you now that he was going to make sure to not follow your wishes you'd be angry now.

What we're establishing is that it's perfectly reasonable to have feelings about one's corpse's disposal.

Quote:

I would have an objection about that, yes. My grandmother would not.

Which establishes that people can have feelings about other people's corpse's disposal as well.

arthwollipot · 18th January 2021, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Then you won't be capable of feeling upset or angry. But if your son told you now that he was going to make sure to not follow your wishes you'd be angry now.

Not really. I could make a huge fuss and make him promise and write him out of my will and scream and shout and whatever, but he may still choose to do something different when I'm dead so I don't really see the point.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

What we're establishing is that it's perfectly reasonable to have feelings about one's corpse's disposal.

I'm strongly of the opinion that emotional responses are fully human and not something that ought to be avoided, but there are some times when getting angry or upset about something is pointless and just uses mental energy. So no, I wouldn't be angry.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Which establishes that people can have feelings about other people's corpse's disposal as well.

Well, yes. I realise that I was answering a question that was not directed at me, but I have never said that it is unreasonable to have feelings about other peoples' corpse disposal.

angrysoba · 18th January 2021, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

The first medical professional to argue that one of the patients should be killed to save the others should be immediately killed and his/her organs used to save the five.
That way - all five are saved instead of only four and the person so willing to sacrifice another is him/herself sacrificed and can die happy as a great example to all.

Good idea, except it turns out that the only person who could save the five was the medical professional you killed, and her organs are not compatible with the patients. Oh no!!! Also, she was working on life-saving research on curing cancer. D'oh! Congratulations, your deontological outrage just led to a way worse outcome!

angrysoba · 18th January 2021, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Of course I might object now to things that might happen after I'm dead. My son knows how I want my body to be disposed of, for example. And I feel confident that he will comply with my wishes in that matter. However, if he doesn't, then I will neither have any control over that, nor will I be capable of feeling upset or angry about it.

Unfortunately this works both ways. For example, if you say, "Donate my organs and body to medical science!" but your family decide they would rather build a massive mausoleum and mummify your body, then they could argue, "Sure, it's not what he wanted but he's dead so his feelings are irrelevant."

I think a more rational approach doesn't appeal to anger and other emotions.

Gord_in_Toronto · 18th January 2021, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Again, we are speaking of reactions now to hypothetical future events. Unless you are claiming that you now would have no emotional reaction to finding out something unpleasant will happen in the future after your death?

Gee. My wife often asks me this question. How or why should I be emotional when I am dead, deaddity dead? I'll be dead. I won't care. It won't affect me in any possible way. Take my remains (if any) to the dog food factory and make a dog or two happy.

angrysoba · 18th January 2021, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Gee. My wife often asks me this question. How or why should I be emotional when I am dead, deaddity dead? I'll be dead. I won't care. It won't affect me in any possible way. Take my remains (if any) to the dog food factory and make a dog or two happy.

But what if they eat you and get a taste for human flesh? Then consquences would be terrible.

Gord_in_Toronto · 18th January 2021, 05:37 PM

I continue to get a good chuckle from this thread from those that seem to think the question is answerable. It is not. There is no equation to assign numbers to the variables and get a solution. At one time I worked for a government ministry of health (in a non-medical role). If there was such an equation, we would have used it for budgeting.

Gord_in_Toronto · 18th January 2021, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

But what if they eat you and get a taste for human flesh? Then consquences would be terrible.

Ahem. I'll be dead and uncaring.

angrysoba · 18th January 2021, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

I continue to get a good chuckle from this thread from those that seem to think the question is answerable. It is not. There is no equation to assign numbers to the variables and get a solution. At one time I worked for a government ministry of health (in a non-medical role). If there was such an equation, we would have used it for budgeting.

I dunno.

Is it not answerable?

I remember an episode of Rationally Speaking with Julia Galef who said she hears people say, "We can't assign a probability to that outcome!" and then she asks "How about 1%?" and the person would respond, "No, much higher than that!"

There may not be a perfect answer, but I think some answers square with our moral intutions more than others.

When someone says, "We can't assign a value for a human life!" can we say it is worth less than five human lives? Or twenty? Or one hundred? Or a million?

I think there has to be a point at which we would bite the bullet and say, "Okay, we can sacrifice one human life for X!"

angrysoba · 18th January 2021, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

If there was such an equation, we would have used it for budgeting.

Also, I have to wonder if you don't at least use some rule-of-thumb equations for budgeting.

If there were certain drugs or certain types of research that could save a few lives but would bankrupt the country, then you wouldn't pursue it. I would bet a lot of money that budgeting does indeed boil down to "we can save five lives or one". It just doesn't look like it because it is so complicated.

Cavemonster · 18th January 2021, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

I continue to get a good chuckle from this thread from those that seem to think the question is answerable. It is not. There is no equation to assign numbers to the variables and get a solution. At one time I worked for a government ministry of health (in a non-medical role). If there was such an equation, we would have used it for budgeting.

I'm not sure about the particular ministry you worked for, but there absolutely are formulas for complex moral valuations in healthcare.

I'll give you one right now. Professionals are deciding the order in which people are prioritized for vaccine. And before that, they had to create policies about who gets preference if ventilators or ICU beds are maxxed out.

We could argue about whether such questions are objectively answerable, but they must be answered.

Cavemonster · 18th January 2021, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I dunno.

Is it not answerable?

I remember an episode of Rationally Speaking with Julia Galef who said she hears people say, "We can't assign a probability to that outcome!" and then she asks "How about 1%?" and the person would respond, "No, much higher than that!"

There may not be a perfect answer, but I think some answers square with our moral intutions more than others.

When someone says, "We can't assign a value for a human life!" can we say it is worth less than five human lives? Or twenty? Or one hundred? Or a million?

I think there has to be a point at which we would bite the bullet and say, "Okay, we can sacrifice one human life for X!"

In fact, there are a ton of situations where a government spending some amount of money could potentially save a life. And while lives are priceless, governments don't have infinite money, they absolutely have formulas for how much money they'll spend to save a life. I believe in the US in at least a few agencies, the number is around 8 million per person or so to budget in terms of solving problems that have a statistical mortality.

arthwollipot · 18th January 2021, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Unfortunately this works both ways. For example, if you say, "Donate my organs and body to medical science!" but your family decide they would rather build a massive mausoleum and mummify your body, then they could argue, "Sure, it's not what he wanted but he's dead so his feelings are irrelevant."

They could indeed do that, and there would be absolutely nothing I could do about it. So I don't see a point to getting preemptively upset about it.

For the record, I would be absolutely fine with being mummified in a massive mausoleum, but anyway.

angrysoba · 18th January 2021, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

They could indeed do that, and there would be absolutely nothing I could do about it. So I don't see a point to getting preemptively upset about it.

For the record, I would be absolutely fine with being mummified in a massive mausoleum, but anyway.

I think the issue here is that we don’t believe you can be as indifferent as you claim to be towards anything that you can’t do anything about. We can get upset about things we cannot do anything about: natural disasters for example.

We might also want to care about things that happen after our death, to people we love.

Myriad · 18th January 2021, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by suren

Yes, sacrificing own life is acceptable in this situation. Because it's not somebody's else life.

Okay, there's a starting point, which also adds some clarification. It's not the outcome that's necessarily objectionable, it's who decides it.

Now suppose the circumstances are as before, and it's one of the specific scenarios where you would sacrifice your own life. The problem is, this time you're in a coma and unlikely to revive (due to the condition that's also threatening your life) before you either die or are cured by transplant surgery. Fortunately, you have a close friend or relative whom you trust and who has your power of attorney. That person knows all your views about such situations, and on that basis is certain that you'd sacrifice your life if you could, and therefore volunteers your life and organs on your behalf. Is that acceptable?

(As before, disregarding the separate question of whether it would be ethical for the doctors to actually carry out the request.)

arthwollipot · 18th January 2021, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I think the issue here is that we don’t believe you can be as indifferent as you claim to be towards anything that you can’t do anything about. We can get upset about things we cannot do anything about: natural disasters for example.

We might also want to care about things that happen after our death, to people we love.

Again, I'm not talking about anything I can't do anything about, I'm talking about this thing I can't do anything about. Perhaps I was unclear earlier and gave people the impression that I was speaking about a broader range of circumstances than I was. I hope I have clarified sufficiently that I am talking specifically about what happens to my body after death, and nothing else.

angrysoba · 18th January 2021, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Again, I'm not talking about anything I can't do anything about, I'm talking about this thing I can't do anything about. Perhaps I was unclear earlier and gave people the impression that I was speaking about a broader range of circumstances than I was. I hope I have clarified sufficiently that I am talking specifically about what happens to my body after death, and nothing else.

Okay, no problem!

arthwollipot · 18th January 2021, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Okay, no problem!

Gord_in_Toronto · 19th January 2021, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Also, I have to wonder if you don't at least use some rule-of-thumb equations for budgeting.

If there were certain drugs or certain types of research that could save a few lives but would bankrupt the country, then you wouldn't pursue it. I would bet a lot of money that budgeting does indeed boil down to "we can save five lives or one". It just doesn't look like it because it is so complicated.

Indeed. Decisions have to be made. The question, "How much is a human life worth", is always in the background. Budgets were set. However, there is no definitive answer.

theprestige · 19th January 2021, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Alright then, I'll give a better example: In many cultures around the world, they have opt-out rather than opt-in. It seems that this is not a very difficult thing to get people on board with. It should be promoted for the benefits that it can clearly bring to society and those people who want no part of it get to opt-out.

What's the problem with that?

The problem I have with that is that people who want no part of it are opted in without actually giving them the option, and then expected to go to extra effort of their own to opt out.

theprestige · 19th January 2021, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I don't know where this highlighted bit comes in. Presumably this assumes a for-profit healthcare system, which was not one of my assumptions.

In my view, opt-out simply has beneficial health outcomes, so the status quo bias is set at "better health outcomes" and those who object to better health outcomes still get to change the settings if they prefer.

The currency in this case is human organs. The automatic-in policy treats human organs as commodities, and uses an ethically-questionable sales gimmick to maximize revenues of human organs.

theprestige · 19th January 2021, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Ahem. I'll be dead and uncaring. : p

This tends towards solipsism.

It also dismisses any argument for social change based on appeal to outcomes for future generations.

Global climate change will kill thousands and harm millions more in the future? I could make some radical changes to my own lifestyle to prevent this from happening at some point after my death?

Ahem.

I'll be dead and uncaring.

Darat · 19th January 2021, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

In fact, there are a ton of situations where a government spending some amount of money could potentially save a life. And while lives are priceless, governments don't have infinite money, they absolutely have formulas for how much money they'll spend to save a life. I believe in the US in at least a few agencies, the number is around 8 million per person or so to budget in terms of solving problems that have a statistical mortality.

In UK healthcare the figure is usually about up to £20000 per QALY, so if someone lives 70 healthy years that would be around £1.4 million. What it means in real life is if for example a new drug would give a terminal cancer patient an additional 6 months and it cost £30,000 for the treatment it wouldn’t be available via one of the NHSs. (You could of course still pay for it.)

Darat · 19th January 2021, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

You'd have no objection if someone defiled your grandmother's grave to make a funny TikTok video, then?

I’m not dead.

theprestige · 19th January 2021, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

We could argue about whether such questions are objectively answerable, but they must be answered.

This is pretty much where I'm at. Moral philosophers can babble all day about how there is no one "good" or "right" answer to the Trolley Problem.

Meanwhile, in real life, we have to come up with the best answers we can all the time. Medical professionals. Military commanders.

Hell, Hillary Clinton's whole campaign promise of reducing or eliminating coal jobs, in the name of making a better tomorrow for more people than she was promising a worse today, was just her presenting a real-world trolley problem and her real-world solution.

18th January 2021, 06:41 AM	#81
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,496	Originally Posted by arthwollipot The difference is that I will be dead and not able to feel anything. That's true for every emotion on every subject. What I was asking was whether you now, if gifted with perfect knowledge of the future, would be incapable of anger on matters surrounding your corpse alone, or if you would be equally aloof about all other matters as well. For instance, if your family home were to be purchased by Martin Shkreli and turned into a museum extolling his greatness, or if your last pet outlived you but would be killed by a drunk driver, or if your surviving loved ones were to be swindled by fraudsters and end up in poverty, or your country destroyed in a war. I suggest that no, you and most people are perfectly capable of having emotional reactions to events past, present, and future hypothetical. And that this is absolutely normal.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

18th January 2021, 06:57 AM	#82
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,026	Originally Posted by theprestige ...snip... So where does the state get the moral authority to decide what I'm allowed to do with my own body? Can’t think of any developed country that doesn’t and hasn’t for a long time. There are usually strict regulations of how bodies have to be disposed off, including bits that are cut off or cut out when you are still alive. Plus in the countries that have an opt-out system you have the exact same options as in an opt-in one.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

18th January 2021, 07:05 AM	#83
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,026	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey But it does seem to be a "difficult thing to get on board with", or else people would be agreeing with you on the matter, wouldn't they? Scrolling in this thread suggests the opposite. It doesn’t - the article I linked to touches on it but in places which have adopted opt-out the decision very quickly becomes one that most people believe is an inconsequential decision. I was about to link to some older stuff I’ve read in the past but as I was searching this article popped up from literally a few days ago about this exact issue: https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard....onation-us-uk/
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

18th January 2021, 07:08 AM	#84
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,026	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Those people who disagree are more than welcome to opt out. And as I always say when it comes to ideas of the dead owning or having rights, I am absolutely willing to consider that ownership claim and that claim of rights if the dead start complaining....
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

18th January 2021, 07:10 AM	#85
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,496	Originally Posted by Darat And as I always say when it comes to ideas of the dead owning or having rights, I am absolutely willing to consider that ownership claim and that claim of rights if the dead start complaining.... You'd have no objection if someone defiled your grandmother's grave to make a funny TikTok video, then?
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

18th January 2021, 09:51 AM	#86
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,414	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey You'd have no objection if someone defiled your grandmother's grave to make a funny TikTok video, then? It is very difficult to object to anything when you are dead. You might have an emotion about something while alive. But I'm with Darat on this.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

18th January 2021, 10:03 AM	#87
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,496	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto It is very difficult to object to anything when you are dead. You might have an emotion about something while alive. But I'm with Darat on this. Again, we are speaking of reactions now to hypothetical future events. Unless you are claiming that you now would have no emotional reaction to finding out something unpleasant will happen in the future after your death?
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

18th January 2021, 10:33 AM	#88
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,650	Originally Posted by angrysoba Besides that, the state often gets to incarcerate people if they breach certain parts of a social contract that they never signed, they get to make conditions on certain vaccinations, children are wards of state, etc... The fundamental principle here is that the state cannot just incarcerate people willy-nilly. The state essentially has to argue for an exception to that rule, and prove to some degree of certainty that an exception is justified in this specific case, for these specific reasons. And if it fails to convince, it must give up the attempt. This is the opposite of the organ-donor principle, where the state takes over automatically, and the actual owner of the body must take exception. Which is simple enough to do, but... There are plenty of scams and quasi-scams based on the fact that people are much less likely to opt out of a subscription, once they've opted in (or been opted in). It's a marketing gimmick, exploited by everything from Columbia House to Amazon Prime. These businesses rely on human inattention to increase their revenues. And the government does the same thing - increasing its revenue of human organs. To me, using marketing tricks to fish in everyone who's not paying attention is much less ethical than only working with people who are paying attention and making an informed choice to participate. I find it especially interesting - and unethical - for the government in this case to portray it as a success of people choosing to donate, when really it's a success of people being chosen to donate and not noticing. But yeah, I'm not a fan of governments commoditizing human organs and using state powers to auto-enroll donors and maximize revenues.

18th January 2021, 11:24 AM	#89
Myriad The Clarity Is Devastating Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Betwixt Posts: 17,484	Suren, it might be worthwhile to ask a different angle on your original scenario. Suppose you were one of the five people in jeopardy? Assume you're conscious and in no great pain, but you know you and the other four will all die if nothing is done. Is there any possibility within that scenario that you would volunteer to sacrifice your life and your organs to save the other four? Suppose all the others have young children dependent on them, while your children were grown and successful already. Or suppose the four other were your children. Or alternatively, suppose the five of you are all just random strangers, but for whatever reason you're at peace with the world and you've resigned yourself to dying. Now, it might not be ethical for the doctors to accept or act upon such an offer, let alone ask you or any of the others to volunteer. Those are separate questions. But is the possibility you would volunteer completely unthinkable on the face of it?
	__________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...

18th January 2021, 11:38 AM	#90
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,650	Volunteer to take the fall? Agree to a lottery? Opt out of the lottery and its payoff?

18th January 2021, 12:25 PM	#91
suren Scholar Join Date: Jul 2015 Location: Armenia, Yerevan Posts: 107	Originally Posted by Myriad Suren, it might be worthwhile to ask a different angle on your original scenario. Suppose you were one of the five people in jeopardy? Assume you're conscious and in no great pain, but you know you and the other four will all die if nothing is done. Is there any possibility within that scenario that you would volunteer to sacrifice your life and your organs to save the other four? Suppose all the others have young children dependent on them, while your children were grown and successful already. Or suppose the four other were your children. Or alternatively, suppose the five of you are all just random strangers, but for whatever reason you're at peace with the world and you've resigned yourself to dying. Now, it might not be ethical for the doctors to accept or act upon such an offer, let alone ask you or any of the others to volunteer. Those are separate questions. But is the possibility you would volunteer completely unthinkable on the face of it? Yes, sacrificing own life is acceptable in this situation. Because it's not somebody's else life.
	__________________ Follow those who seek the truth, run away from those who have found it.

18th January 2021, 02:55 PM	#92
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,390	Originally Posted by theprestige The fundamental principle here is that the state cannot just incarcerate people willy-nilly. The state essentially has to argue for an exception to that rule, and prove to some degree of certainty that an exception is justified in this specific case, for these specific reasons. And if it fails to convince, it must give up the attempt. This is the opposite of the organ-donor principle, where the state takes over automatically, and the actual owner of the body must take exception. Which is simple enough to do, but... There are plenty of scams and quasi-scams based on the fact that people are much less likely to opt out of a subscription, once they've opted in (or been opted in). It's a marketing gimmick, exploited by everything from Columbia House to Amazon Prime. These businesses rely on human inattention to increase their revenues. And the government does the same thing - increasing its revenue of human organs. To me, using marketing tricks to fish in everyone who's not paying attention is much less ethical than only working with people who are paying attention and making an informed choice to participate. I find it especially interesting - and unethical - for the government in this case to portray it as a success of people choosing to donate, when really it's a success of people being chosen to donate and not noticing. But yeah, I'm not a fan of governments commoditizing human organs and using state powers to auto-enroll donors and maximize revenues. I don't know where this highlighted bit comes in. Presumably this assumes a for-profit healthcare system, which was not one of my assumptions. In my view, opt-out simply has beneficial health outcomes, so the status quo bias is set at "better health outcomes" and those who object to better health outcomes still get to change the settings if they prefer.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

18th January 2021, 03:04 PM	#93
dann Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 13,596	Originally Posted by suren Imagine there are 5 dying unconscious patients with various organ failures (heart, lung, kidney, etc.). There is a possibility to kill one of them and use his organs to save the other 4. There is no possibility of preference for a victim based on rationality, i.e. we can choose the victim randomly at best. Is it acceptable to kill someone for the sake of saving others? Imagine that 500,000 people are going to die within the next year with various organ failures (heart, lung, kidney, etc.). It is possible to save the vast majority of them, but you imagine that it may be at the expense of business and your political career. Is it acceptable to kill 500,000 people for the sake of business and political careers? Sorry, but I just can't stand those imaginary dilemmas.
	__________________ /dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

18th January 2021, 03:08 PM	#94
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 70,273	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey That's true for every emotion on every subject. What I was asking was whether you now, if gifted with perfect knowledge of the future, would be incapable of anger on matters surrounding your corpse alone, or if you would be equally aloof about all other matters as well. For instance, if your family home were to be purchased by Martin Shkreli and turned into a museum extolling his greatness, or if your last pet outlived you but would be killed by a drunk driver, or if your surviving loved ones were to be swindled by fraudsters and end up in poverty, or your country destroyed in a war. I suggest that no, you and most people are perfectly capable of having emotional reactions to events past, present, and future hypothetical. And that this is absolutely normal. Of course I might object now to things that might happen after I'm dead. My son knows how I want my body to be disposed of, for example. And I feel confident that he will comply with my wishes in that matter. However, if he doesn't, then I will neither have any control over that, nor will I be capable of feeling upset or angry about it. Originally Posted by TragicMonkey You'd have no objection if someone defiled your grandmother's grave to make a funny TikTok video, then? I would have an objection about that, yes. My grandmother would not.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

18th January 2021, 03:26 PM	#95
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,096	Originally Posted by suren Imagine there are 5 dying unconscious patients with various organ failures (heart, lung, kidney, etc.). There is a possibility to kill one of them and use his organs to save the other 4. There is no possibility of preference for a victim based on rationality, i.e. we can choose the victim randomly at best. Is it acceptable to kill someone for the sake of saving others? Some people might argue that we should leave them to die since we are committing murder which is by itself is very immoral. But what if we were in a similar situation with 100 or even 1000 (both are unrealistic but let's ignore this for the sake of the thought experiment) dying patients instead of 5? Can this number reach to some point where killing 1 person becomes more rational/moral? The first medical professional to argue that one of the patients should be killed to save the others should be immediately killed and his/her organs used to save the five. That way - all five are saved instead of only four and the person so willing to sacrifice another is him/herself sacrificed and can die happy as a great example to all.
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,096	__________________ "Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." *Steve Earle* "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." *Townes Van Zandt*

18th January 2021, 03:27 PM	#96
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,496	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Of course I might object now to things that might happen after I'm dead. My son knows how I want my body to be disposed of, for example. And I feel confident that he will comply with my wishes in that matter. However, if he doesn't, then I will neither have any control over that, nor will I be capable of feeling upset or angry about it. Then you won't be capable of feeling upset or angry. But if your son told you now that he was going to make sure to not follow your wishes you'd be angry now. What we're establishing is that it's perfectly reasonable to have feelings about one's corpse's disposal. Quote: I would have an objection about that, yes. My grandmother would not. Which establishes that people can have feelings about other people's corpse's disposal as well.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

18th January 2021, 04:34 PM	#97
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 70,273	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Then you won't be capable of feeling upset or angry. But if your son told you now that he was going to make sure to not follow your wishes you'd be angry now. Not really. I could make a huge fuss and make him promise and write him out of my will and scream and shout and whatever, but he may still choose to do something different when I'm dead so I don't really see the point. Originally Posted by TragicMonkey What we're establishing is that it's perfectly reasonable to have feelings about one's corpse's disposal. I'm strongly of the opinion that emotional responses are fully human and not something that ought to be avoided, but there are some times when getting angry or upset about something is pointless and just uses mental energy. So no, I wouldn't be angry. Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Which establishes that people can have feelings about other people's corpse's disposal as well. Well, yes. I realise that I was answering a question that was not directed at me, but I have never said that it is unreasonable to have feelings about other peoples' corpse disposal.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

18th January 2021, 05:18 PM	#98
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,390	Originally Posted by rockinkt The first medical professional to argue that one of the patients should be killed to save the others should be immediately killed and his/her organs used to save the five. That way - all five are saved instead of only four and the person so willing to sacrifice another is him/herself sacrificed and can die happy as a great example to all. Good idea, except it turns out that the only person who could save the five was the medical professional you killed, and her organs are not compatible with the patients. Oh no!!! Also, she was working on life-saving research on curing cancer. D'oh! Congratulations, your deontological outrage just led to a way worse outcome!
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

18th January 2021, 05:21 PM	#99
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,390	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Of course I might object now to things that might happen after I'm dead. My son knows how I want my body to be disposed of, for example. And I feel confident that he will comply with my wishes in that matter. However, if he doesn't, then I will neither have any control over that, nor will I be capable of feeling upset or angry about it. Unfortunately this works both ways. For example, if you say, "Donate my organs and body to medical science!" but your family decide they would rather build a massive mausoleum and mummify your body, then they could argue, "Sure, it's not what he wanted but he's dead so his feelings are irrelevant." I think a more rational approach doesn't appeal to anger and other emotions.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

18th January 2021, 05:25 PM	#100
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,414	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Again, we are speaking of reactions now to hypothetical future events. Unless you are claiming that you now would have no emotional reaction to finding out something unpleasant will happen in the future after your death? Gee. My wife often asks me this question. How or why should I be emotional when I am dead, deaddity dead? I'll be dead. I won't care. It won't affect me in any possible way. Take my remains (if any) to the dog food factory and make a dog or two happy.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

18th January 2021, 05:33 PM	#101
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,390	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto Gee. My wife often asks me this question. How or why should I be emotional when I am dead, deaddity dead? I'll be dead. I won't care. It won't affect me in any possible way. Take my remains (if any) to the dog food factory and make a dog or two happy. But what if they eat you and get a taste for human flesh? Then consquences would be terrible.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

18th January 2021, 05:37 PM	#102
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,414	I continue to get a good chuckle from this thread from those that seem to think the question is answerable. It is not. There is no equation to assign numbers to the variables and get a solution. At one time I worked for a government ministry of health (in a non-medical role). If there was such an equation, we would have used it for budgeting.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

18th January 2021, 05:38 PM	#103
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,414	Originally Posted by angrysoba But what if they eat you and get a taste for human flesh? Then consquences would be terrible. Ahem. I'll be dead and uncaring.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

18th January 2021, 05:48 PM	#104
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,390	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto I continue to get a good chuckle from this thread from those that seem to think the question is answerable. It is not. There is no equation to assign numbers to the variables and get a solution. At one time I worked for a government ministry of health (in a non-medical role). If there was such an equation, we would have used it for budgeting. I dunno. Is it not answerable? I remember an episode of Rationally Speaking with Julia Galef who said she hears people say, "We can't assign a probability to that outcome!" and then she asks "How about 1%?" and the person would respond, "No, much higher than that!" There may not be a perfect answer, but I think some answers square with our moral intutions more than others. When someone says, "We can't assign a value for a human life!" can we say it is worth less than five human lives? Or twenty? Or one hundred? Or a million? I think there has to be a point at which we would bite the bullet and say, "Okay, we can sacrifice one human life for X!"
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

18th January 2021, 05:52 PM	#105
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,390	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto If there was such an equation, we would have used it for budgeting. Also, I have to wonder if you don't at least use some rule-of-thumb equations for budgeting. If there were certain drugs or certain types of research that could save a few lives but would bankrupt the country, then you wouldn't pursue it. I would bet a lot of money that budgeting does indeed boil down to "we can save five lives or one". It just doesn't look like it because it is so complicated.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

18th January 2021, 06:15 PM	#106
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,518	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto I continue to get a good chuckle from this thread from those that seem to think the question is answerable. It is not. There is no equation to assign numbers to the variables and get a solution. At one time I worked for a government ministry of health (in a non-medical role). If there was such an equation, we would have used it for budgeting. I'm not sure about the particular ministry you worked for, but there absolutely are formulas for complex moral valuations in healthcare. I'll give you one right now. Professionals are deciding the order in which people are prioritized for vaccine. And before that, they had to create policies about who gets preference if ventilators or ICU beds are maxxed out. We could argue about whether such questions are objectively answerable, but they must be answered.
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,518	__________________ The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON

18th January 2021, 06:21 PM	#107
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,518	Originally Posted by angrysoba I dunno. Is it not answerable? I remember an episode of Rationally Speaking with Julia Galef who said she hears people say, "We can't assign a probability to that outcome!" and then she asks "How about 1%?" and the person would respond, "No, much higher than that!" There may not be a perfect answer, but I think some answers square with our moral intutions more than others. When someone says, "We can't assign a value for a human life!" can we say it is worth less than five human lives? Or twenty? Or one hundred? Or a million? I think there has to be a point at which we would bite the bullet and say, "Okay, we can sacrifice one human life for X!" In fact, there are a ton of situations where a government spending some amount of money could potentially save a life. And while lives are priceless, governments don't have infinite money, they absolutely have formulas for how much money they'll spend to save a life. I believe in the US in at least a few agencies, the number is around 8 million per person or so to budget in terms of solving problems that have a statistical mortality.
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,518	__________________ The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON

18th January 2021, 06:43 PM	#108
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 70,273	Originally Posted by angrysoba Unfortunately this works both ways. For example, if you say, "Donate my organs and body to medical science!" but your family decide they would rather build a massive mausoleum and mummify your body, then they could argue, "Sure, it's not what he wanted but he's dead so his feelings are irrelevant." They could indeed do that, and there would be absolutely nothing I could do about it. So I don't see a point to getting preemptively upset about it. For the record, I would be absolutely fine with being mummified in a massive mausoleum, but anyway.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

18th January 2021, 06:51 PM	#109
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,390	Originally Posted by arthwollipot They could indeed do that, and there would be absolutely nothing I could do about it. So I don't see a point to getting preemptively upset about it. For the record, I would be absolutely fine with being mummified in a massive mausoleum, but anyway. I think the issue here is that we don’t believe you can be as indifferent as you claim to be towards anything that you can’t do anything about. We can get upset about things we cannot do anything about: natural disasters for example. We might also want to care about things that happen after our death, to people we love.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

18th January 2021, 07:14 PM	#110
Myriad The Clarity Is Devastating Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Betwixt Posts: 17,484	Originally Posted by suren Yes, sacrificing own life is acceptable in this situation. Because it's not somebody's else life. Okay, there's a starting point, which also adds some clarification. It's not the outcome that's necessarily objectionable, it's who decides it. Now suppose the circumstances are as before, and it's one of the specific scenarios where you would sacrifice your own life. The problem is, this time you're in a coma and unlikely to revive (due to the condition that's also threatening your life) before you either die or are cured by transplant surgery. Fortunately, you have a close friend or relative whom you trust and who has your power of attorney. That person knows all your views about such situations, and on that basis is certain that you'd sacrifice your life if you could, and therefore volunteers your life and organs on your behalf. Is that acceptable? (As before, disregarding the separate question of whether it would be ethical for the doctors to actually carry out the request.)
	__________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...

18th January 2021, 07:29 PM	#111
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 70,273	Originally Posted by angrysoba I think the issue here is that we don’t believe you can be as indifferent as you claim to be towards anything that you can’t do anything about. We can get upset about things we cannot do anything about: natural disasters for example. We might also want to care about things that happen after our death, to people we love. Again, I'm not talking about anything I can't do anything about, I'm talking about this thing I can't do anything about. Perhaps I was unclear earlier and gave people the impression that I was speaking about a broader range of circumstances than I was. I hope I have clarified sufficiently that I am talking specifically about what happens to my body after death, and nothing else.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

18th January 2021, 09:13 PM	#112
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,390	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Again, I'm not talking about anything I can't do anything about, I'm talking about this thing I can't do anything about. Perhaps I was unclear earlier and gave people the impression that I was speaking about a broader range of circumstances than I was. I hope I have clarified sufficiently that I am talking specifically about what happens to my body after death, and nothing else. Okay, no problem!
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

18th January 2021, 09:22 PM	#113
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 70,273	Originally Posted by angrysoba Okay, no problem!
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

19th January 2021, 09:22 AM	#114
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,414	Originally Posted by angrysoba Also, I have to wonder if you don't at least use some rule-of-thumb equations for budgeting. If there were certain drugs or certain types of research that could save a few lives but would bankrupt the country, then you wouldn't pursue it. I would bet a lot of money that budgeting does indeed boil down to "we can save five lives or one". It just doesn't look like it because it is so complicated. Indeed. Decisions have to be made. The question, "How much is a human life worth", is always in the background. Budgets were set. However, there is no definitive answer.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

19th January 2021, 09:41 AM	#115
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 49,650	Originally Posted by angrysoba Alright then, I'll give a better example: In many cultures around the world, they have opt-out rather than opt-in. It seems that this is not a very difficult thing to get people on board with. It should be promoted for the benefits that it can clearly bring to society and those people who want no part of it get to opt-out. What's the problem with that? The problem I have with that is that people who want no part of it are opted in without actually giving them the option, and then expected to go to extra effort of their own to opt out.