4 ms·

> Treating lives as some fungible resource where the ends justify the means and whatever process results in the most living people at the end shouldn't be corre

> Treating lives as some fungible resource where the ends justify the means and whatever process results in the most living people at the end shouldn't be correct. That idea, with perhaps taking QALYs or something similar into account, seems like a pretty intuitive goal to me from an ethical standpoint. What do you suggest we should be optimizing for instead?

ohyes 11y ago
Well, there are certainly other ethical considerations than "most warm bodes". You also have to preserve human rights, for example. You could argue that trialing a potentially deadly drug took away a basic one from these people.
brazzledazzle 11y ago
A collection of people is not a column in a spreadsheet or inventory. The most valuable thing in the world is a human life regardless of callous examples of how cheaply they can be had or taken. Just because you can measure two different systems using a blind metric like "most living people at the end" doesn't make it ethical. Ethics apply to individuals as much, if not more so, as groups.
- philh 11y ago
  That doesn't help us choose what to do. A collection of people is important, and another collection of people is important, and one of these collections of people is going to die and we have to choose which one. Platitudes about the domain of ethics don't help us to choose.
  - brazzledazzle 11y ago
    That isn't the situation at all. One group of people was going to die regardless. Or was going to suffer a life-long disease. The debate is whether or not killing people that weren't going to die is worth it if your body count is lower at the end. We're not debating whether or not flipping the switch on a train track is ethical.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  > The most valuable thing in the world is a human life regardless of callous examples of how cheaply they can be had or taken. Until I hear that from a sentient creature that is not human, I won't accept it as an universal truth.
  - evincarofautumn 11y ago
    We are not worth anything except to each other—value is dative, if you will. The importance of human life is no less true just because it’s subjective to humans.
  - brazzledazzle 11y ago
    That's comforting.
Fargren 11y ago
If the target of medicine would be to maximize the amount of living humans, it's most effective method would be forced impregnation. If the target was to minimize the amount of deaths, then the optimal way to achieve it would be to sterilize everyone. It is clear that the solution has to be more nuanced than that. Medicine should not exist to modify the body count of mankind. It's aim has to be realted to improving quality of life.

ohyes 11y ago

Well, there are certainly other ethical considerations than "most warm bodes". You also have to preserve human rights, for example. You could argue that trialing a potentially deadly drug took away a basic one from these people.

brazzledazzle 11y ago

A collection of people is not a column in a spreadsheet or inventory. The most valuable thing in the world is a human life regardless of callous examples of how cheaply they can be had or taken. Just because you can measure two different systems using a blind metric like "most living people at the end" doesn't make it ethical. Ethics apply to individuals as much, if not more so, as groups.

philh 11y ago
That doesn't help us choose what to do. A collection of people is important, and another collection of people is important, and one of these collections of people is going to die and we have to choose which one. Platitudes about the domain of ethics don't help us to choose.
- brazzledazzle 11y ago
  That isn't the situation at all. One group of people was going to die regardless. Or was going to suffer a life-long disease. The debate is whether or not killing people that weren't going to die is worth it if your body count is lower at the end. We're not debating whether or not flipping the switch on a train track is ethical.
venomsnake 11y ago
> The most valuable thing in the world is a human life regardless of callous examples of how cheaply they can be had or taken. Until I hear that from a sentient creature that is not human, I won't accept it as an universal truth.
- evincarofautumn 11y ago
  We are not worth anything except to each other—value is dative, if you will. The importance of human life is no less true just because it’s subjective to humans.
- brazzledazzle 11y ago
  That's comforting.

Fargren 11y ago

If the target of medicine would be to maximize the amount of living humans, it's most effective method would be forced impregnation. If the target was to minimize the amount of deaths, then the optimal way to achieve it would be to sterilize everyone. It is clear that the solution has to be more nuanced than that. Medicine should not exist to modify the body count of mankind. It's aim has to be realted to improving quality of life.