3 ms·

> losing them to get it quicker might be a matter of balance. This is why utilitarian math with human lives is horrifying. You believe you can quantify the wo

> losing them to get it quicker might be a matter of balance. This is why utilitarian math with human lives is horrifying. You believe you can quantify the worth of a life so that it is easier to justify taking it.

theprotocol 10y ago
I find it to be the slipperiest of all slopes. It's an insidious threat to humanity. It reminds me of moral relativism, but instead of cultural factors being used to justify absolutely anything, here it's some bizarre yet convenient calculation of worth, which by total coincidence (sarcasm), allows all the would-be human experimenters to feel good about themselves. We haven't learned a thing from the scientific community's hype cycle. Scientists and technologists need to humble ourselves - the polar opposite of presuming to operate on humanity based on some assessment of human worth. We don't even know what a good diet looks like, never mind grandiose agendas based on assumptions of human worth! (I'd also like to correct what I wrote earlier - I meant Mengelian, not Mendelian.)
- Chris2048 10y ago
  Again, what's this got to do with utility? You give a sceptical commentary free of any actual examples; what are you talking about?
Chris2048 10y ago
> is horrifying. Why? You just say it is. I see non-utilitarian math as horrifying. The "let nature take its course" school of thought. > You believe you can quantify the worth of a life so that it is easier to justify taking it. Says who? Are you talking about intent? If life can be quantified, there is a justification. If you don't believe life can be quantified, why don't we spend unlimited dollars saving it?
- darpa_escapee 10y ago
  > Why? We'll have to answer the questions of "How much is a life worth monetarily", "How much is this specific life worth in relation to others (or monetarily)", "Does this specific situation justify the loss of lives; if so, how many lives and, specifically, whose?", and "Who gets the power to answer these questions?" We will have to act on the answers to those questions. I believe those questions open an answer space that would give power to greedy, selfish, callous or indifferent people and ideologies to kill or let others die. I believe if we accept a utilitarianism as justification for death, we'll be inviting proponents of human actuarial science, realpolitik, genocide, sterilization and murder of certain demographics 'for the betterment of society' to kill for profit, power or any of the other reasons people have killed others in past. I don't believe that people determine value well, so I don't buy into the utilitarian argument for much. I also haven't seen good evidence that we can accurately quantify the outcomes of situations used in the utilitarian calculus before they've happened. While I reject utilitarianism as a whole, I find applying the utilitarian principle to human lives to be particularly detached. > If you don't believe life can be quantified, why don't we spend unlimited dollars saving it? I realize the questions I listed above have been asked and answered, directly and indirectly, at different times and by different people. Those questions and answers have justified a disregard for life and atrocities against humanity. I don't believe we should base policy on the answers to those questions.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > How much is this specific life worth We already do in healthcare, safety etc. Roads claim lives, buildings claim lives, products claim lives. We balance costs in all those areas too. I believe failing to answer those questions openly is a greater harm; You have no sense of improving quality of life, or increase human worth if you pretend it's universally priceless. If you refuse to set the price, others will. > we'll be inviting proponents of human actuarial science, realpolitik, genocide, sterilization why do you believe this? this are extreme examples. Conflating fascism with utilitarianism seems borderline slanderous. > don't believe that people determine value well They aren't going to improve if there are barred from doing so. What fills the gap if analytical methods don't? Even science started from fanciful roots, could we have had modern medicine without medieval doctors cutting up cadavers? > While I reject utilitarianism as a whole do you mean 'don't'? > justified a disregard for life and atrocities against humanity You seem to have a sabotaged "brave new world" definition of utilitarianism.

theprotocol 10y ago

I find it to be the slipperiest of all slopes. It's an insidious threat to humanity. It reminds me of moral relativism, but instead of cultural factors being used to justify absolutely anything, here it's some bizarre yet convenient calculation of worth, which by total coincidence (sarcasm), allows all the would-be human experimenters to feel good about themselves. We haven't learned a thing from the scientific community's hype cycle. Scientists and technologists need to humble ourselves - the polar opposite of presuming to operate on humanity based on some assessment of human worth. We don't even know what a good diet looks like, never mind grandiose agendas based on assumptions of human worth! (I'd also like to correct what I wrote earlier - I meant Mengelian, not Mendelian.)

Chris2048 10y ago
Again, what's this got to do with utility? You give a sceptical commentary free of any actual examples; what are you talking about?

Chris2048 10y ago

> is horrifying. Why? You just say it is. I see non-utilitarian math as horrifying. The "let nature take its course" school of thought. > You believe you can quantify the worth of a life so that it is easier to justify taking it. Says who? Are you talking about intent? If life can be quantified, there is a justification. If you don't believe life can be quantified, why don't we spend unlimited dollars saving it?

darpa_escapee 10y ago
> Why? We'll have to answer the questions of "How much is a life worth monetarily", "How much is this specific life worth in relation to others (or monetarily)", "Does this specific situation justify the loss of lives; if so, how many lives and, specifically, whose?", and "Who gets the power to answer these questions?" We will have to act on the answers to those questions. I believe those questions open an answer space that would give power to greedy, selfish, callous or indifferent people and ideologies to kill or let others die. I believe if we accept a utilitarianism as justification for death, we'll be inviting proponents of human actuarial science, realpolitik, genocide, sterilization and murder of certain demographics 'for the betterment of society' to kill for profit, power or any of the other reasons people have killed others in past. I don't believe that people determine value well, so I don't buy into the utilitarian argument for much. I also haven't seen good evidence that we can accurately quantify the outcomes of situations used in the utilitarian calculus before they've happened. While I reject utilitarianism as a whole, I find applying the utilitarian principle to human lives to be particularly detached. > If you don't believe life can be quantified, why don't we spend unlimited dollars saving it? I realize the questions I listed above have been asked and answered, directly and indirectly, at different times and by different people. Those questions and answers have justified a disregard for life and atrocities against humanity. I don't believe we should base policy on the answers to those questions.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > How much is this specific life worth We already do in healthcare, safety etc. Roads claim lives, buildings claim lives, products claim lives. We balance costs in all those areas too. I believe failing to answer those questions openly is a greater harm; You have no sense of improving quality of life, or increase human worth if you pretend it's universally priceless. If you refuse to set the price, others will. > we'll be inviting proponents of human actuarial science, realpolitik, genocide, sterilization why do you believe this? this are extreme examples. Conflating fascism with utilitarianism seems borderline slanderous. > don't believe that people determine value well They aren't going to improve if there are barred from doing so. What fills the gap if analytical methods don't? Even science started from fanciful roots, could we have had modern medicine without medieval doctors cutting up cadavers? > While I reject utilitarianism as a whole do you mean 'don't'? > justified a disregard for life and atrocities against humanity You seem to have a sabotaged "brave new world" definition of utilitarianism.