4 ms·

That's the most heartwarming NY "hustle" story I've ever heard. Working long hours at a carnival, in the NY summer heat, pre-air conditioning (he started in 189

That's the most heartwarming NY "hustle" story I've ever heard. Working long hours at a carnival, in the NY summer heat, pre-air conditioning (he started in 1896!) to save thousands of lives for no recognition. He did this for half a century, and for no profit either: he provided free medical care to the parents! This man is a damned hero. Stories like these are why I could never sympathize with eugenicists, who prevented incubators from being introduced in hospitals until the 1940s.

jessriedel 9y ago
Although no one uses eugenics to justify it anymore, there are still plenty of infants who are allowed to die because of severe birth defects that prevent mental development or give a high risk of early death. The moral situation arguably has greatly improved, but the difference between then and now is not nearly so clean cut.
- Filligree 9y ago
  That's a different situation, isn't it? I mean, it depends on the specifics, but if you have someone who'll never reach even the intelligence of a cat... It's hard to justify their life on ethical grounds, when effectively "they" don't exist. Maybe that wasn't the situation you had in mind.
  - jessriedel 9y ago
    Most people don't value human life in proportion to intelligence. You can certainly construct an ethical framework with various thresholds, but my point is that the actual rules in place today reflect a regulatory equilibrium rather than a self-consistent moral philosophy. Most sensible philosophies will consider at least some modern accepted practices to be morally reprehensible.
    - kalleboo 9y ago
      > but my point is that the actual rules in place today reflect a regulatory equilibrium rather than a self-consistent moral philosophy I guess since people's morals are so varied, it's too hard to agree on a self-consistent moral philosophy. As an extreme example, just look at cases where people will ensure the right for a child to be born, but then not ensure rights to continuing health/nutrition/education. Beyond outliers like that there's a spectrum of every kind of opinion
      - jessriedel 9y ago
        Under that logic, we'd stop saving the lives of the homeless in ERs unless we also gauranteed their health and education.
        kalleboo 9y ago
        Makes sense to me. Why save someone's life if you're going to kick them right back out onto the street to die in some alley again? You may not be surprised to hear I'm from a country with a strong social safety net (which I guess works because there is more consensus on life over liberty)
  - DiffEq 9y ago
    How do you justify the cat's life then, or any life? What level of intelligence has to be met? Who defines that? Why is intelligence the defining attribute?

jessriedel 9y ago

Although no one uses eugenics to justify it anymore, there are still plenty of infants who are allowed to die because of severe birth defects that prevent mental development or give a high risk of early death. The moral situation arguably has greatly improved, but the difference between then and now is not nearly so clean cut.

Filligree 9y ago
That's a different situation, isn't it? I mean, it depends on the specifics, but if you have someone who'll never reach even the intelligence of a cat... It's hard to justify their life on ethical grounds, when effectively "they" don't exist. Maybe that wasn't the situation you had in mind.
- jessriedel 9y ago
  Most people don't value human life in proportion to intelligence. You can certainly construct an ethical framework with various thresholds, but my point is that the actual rules in place today reflect a regulatory equilibrium rather than a self-consistent moral philosophy. Most sensible philosophies will consider at least some modern accepted practices to be morally reprehensible.
  - kalleboo 9y ago
    > but my point is that the actual rules in place today reflect a regulatory equilibrium rather than a self-consistent moral philosophy I guess since people's morals are so varied, it's too hard to agree on a self-consistent moral philosophy. As an extreme example, just look at cases where people will ensure the right for a child to be born, but then not ensure rights to continuing health/nutrition/education. Beyond outliers like that there's a spectrum of every kind of opinion
    - jessriedel 9y ago
      Under that logic, we'd stop saving the lives of the homeless in ERs unless we also gauranteed their health and education.
      - kalleboo 9y ago
        Makes sense to me. Why save someone's life if you're going to kick them right back out onto the street to die in some alley again? You may not be surprised to hear I'm from a country with a strong social safety net (which I guess works because there is more consensus on life over liberty)
- DiffEq 9y ago
  How do you justify the cat's life then, or any life? What level of intelligence has to be met? Who defines that? Why is intelligence the defining attribute?