A common philosophical question that is proposed is "if murdering one person would saved a thousand people, would you kill that one person?". Assuming the lives are of equal worth, the common answer to this is "yes" as the amount of total lives saved by committing the murder would be nine hundred and ninety nine, while the amount of deaths caused by not committing the murder or would be nine hundred and ninety nine. It can certainly be reasoned that the question is really asking "if you had to, would you murder one person or a thousand?" as failing to murder the one would be murdering the nine hundred and ninety nine. The word "saved" comes in to distinguish as a device of semantics.
The true essence of the question is "do you value two people more than one person". That is the logical ending point of the question as it would make no sense to claim that one person is more valuable than two after claiming a thousand are more valuable than one. If one thousand are more valuable than one, then nine hundred and ninety nine is also, as well as nine hundred and ninety eight, and so on. For whatever reason the question often uses a large number like "1,000,000". Perhaps this is because a person is more quickly to agree to it as extremes are easier to work from. Yet no matter how large of a number you start with, the ending point is just the same: "do you value two people more than one person".
It must be assumed that you value these people equally. If the one person is someone you know and who is close to you, say your spouse, you are more likely to let the twp people die to save your spouse. The follow up question becomes, how about three, which goes to four, then to five, then to six. The question becomes "how many people would you let die to save your spouse". Essentially is becomes a game of figuring out how much you value a particular person, and how many people you'd murder to save that person.
Now it is important to realize that the aspect of murder in the question is rather unrelated to the essential question of "do you value two people more than one", as it does provide any role in the in that question. What it does do is it eliminates the answers "it is irrational to value people in such a way". The addition of force and circumstance changes the answer. It is also in a way making sure you really believe it as the real test of principals comes in dire situations.
Taking it Further
The question needs to be taken further as in its current state it is rather uninteresting and bare. Just asking if two lives are valued more than one life isn't at all satisfactory. The question also has no inherent ability to say anything about the real world, which wouldn't be an issue if there question wasn't applied in that state to the real world.
If you can save someone's life by raping someone else, is the rape justified? If not, how many lives must be saved in order for you to rape one person? If so, what if it would take more than one rape to save a person. How many rapes are worth that one person's life?
If you can save a thousand lives by torturing one person, is the torturing justified?
Logically you must accept the scenarios above if you accept the logic used to justify the general murder question. You can come up with any scenario no matter how irrational or unlikely and the negative action will always be justified so long as you accept that the end is superior to the means.
The logic breaks down to:
Action X will result in Y
Y is valued more than X
X is justified
Murdering one person will result in a thousand lives saved
A thousand lives saved is valued more than one person murdered
Murdering that one person is justified
Raping one person will result in saving one life
Saving one person's life is valued more than the rape of one other person
Raping that one person if justified
Torturing one person will result in saving thousands of lives
A thousand lives saved is valued more than torturing one person
Torturing that one person is justified
The Issue
The torture one comes up quite a bit, and many people simply reject the scenario on the basis that the rational that it isn't at all realistic. The primary reason to reject the scenario and the question in general is first premise, that X will result in Y. This implies complete certainty of the future, and the majority of the scenarios proposed are based on this fallacy. To make it obvious, this is what is really being proposed:
Torturing one person has a 100% chance of saving thousands of lives
A thousand lives saved is valued more than torturing one person
Torturing that one person is justified
To generalize the logic:
Action X has a C% chance of resulting in Y
Y is valued more than X
Y is more valued than the probability of failure
X is justified
The application of the logic works quite well with scientific matters as they tend to be quite predictable. Take the example below.
Quarantining someone with a very deadly and contagious disease has a C% chance of saving thousands of people from the disease
Thousands of people not being contaminated with the disease is more valued than quarantining someone with the plague
Quarantining someone with the disease is justified
C is likely very high, probably 95-100% and many people would agree with the statement. Though many people would likely agree wit the statement if C was 10% because potentially saving a thousand lives would be valued more than forcing one person into a quarantine.
What this means is that the potential lives saved are valued more than potentially committing a negative act for no reason when it was not needed. It is important to realize how the variables affect each other. The lower X is valued, the higher C must be. The higher Y is valued, the lower C must be.
Different Questions
Certainly adding a percentage to the question makes it far more interesting and less straight forward. Applying it to the case of murder.
Murdering one has C% chance of saving a thousand. What does C have to be to justify the murdering of the one?
The number of people saved can only be adjusted to form a more interesting question.
Murdering five hundred has a C% chance of saving a thousand. What does C have to be to justify murdering the five hundred?
That question is a bit difficult to answer, because if the probability is 50%, then there is a 50% chance you are murdering five hundred people for nothing. The probability of failure must be low enough to justify possibly murdering five hundred people. Most people will answer differently depending on the ratio of those saved to those killed. Then it gets into the world of:
Murdering five hundred has a C% chance of saving a hundred thousand.
Murdering five hundred has a C% chance of saving a hundred.
Murdering five hundred has a C% chance of saving one.
These scenarios illustrate how Y affects C. The same can be demonstrated with X.
Real World Application
An obvious barrier to real world application is that any elaborate scenario can be constructed in which the scenario dictates that Y will be one hundred percent. There is an obvious issue when it is possible to make impossible situations. To adjust for this, the probability of that scenario occurring which gets multiplied into C. This will make the question applicable to the real world as in any situation where the probability of the event occurring is 100%, the probability of the scenario takes over. Having a system that make it more applicable to the real world is important as it is often applied to the real world.
C = Probability of scenario * Probability of success
This allows for a logical assessment of many controversial issues such as the issue of torture. What is the probability that the person being tortured knows information that would save a thousand lives, what is the probability of the interrogator being able to get the information in time, and most importantly: what is the probability of an interrogator knowing that the person to be tortured has the information needed to save the thousand lives? Certainly these probability can't be measured, but they can be reasoned to be 0%. Because of this, most would not be in favor or the torture.
The ending logic that can be applied to the real world is:
Action X has a [N% of succeeding * I% chance of occurring]% chance of resulting in Y
Y is valued more than X
Y is more valued than the probability of failure
X is justified
Conclusion
This logic still works with scientific outcomes, especially in regard to yields, but the primary issue is that N and I are likely to be immeasurable in many circumstances. Because of this, the question ought to be evaluated with 0 and 100% and the worst outcome should be taken as the most realistic.
As far as the "do you value two people more than one", I cannot the answer question as I am not capable of valuing human life.
No comments:
Post a Comment