6 ms·

Yes: it protects the poor and weak. Thought experiment: a multi-billionaire wants to beat a human to death, and offers $10 million for it. A grandfather decide

by wsy 8y ago

Yes: it protects the poor and weak. Thought experiment: a multi-billionaire wants to beat a human to death, and offers $10 million for it. A grandfather decides he would like to take that offer, for his children and grandchildren. Would you allow that? If you also would not allow it (that's what I hope), then where is the proper boundary? What should we outlaw, and what allow?

umanwizard 8y ago
You first -- on what principles do you think the grandfather's choice in your example should be illegal?
- wsy 8y ago
  Illegal simply because it is murder, regardless how much money the murderer pays in advance. Immoral because human life and dignity should not become a tradeable commodity. A society allowing this would quickly deteriorate into a system where the rich just buy the desired behavior from the poor, and we would end up with an oligarchy instead of a democracy. Another angle to object would be Rawls's theory of justice: suppose you would have to design a society, but you wouldn't know into which place of this society you would be born into. You could be born as son of Bill Gates, or as daughter of the poor homeless beggar at the next corner. How would you design a society under these conditions?
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    Edit to state the central point clearly at the top: why do you think restricting their range of possible choices "protects the poor and weak" ? If you have a shitty job, would you be better off getting fired? No, because presumably you already had the ability to quit. (Anticipating someone jumping on me for the analogy: I'm obviously not saying having a shitty job is equivalent to being in such dire straits that someone would consider selling their kidney. I recognize the a huge difference in degree. I'm just illustrating the point.) > Immoral because human life and dignity should not become a tradeable commodity. This is just restating your conclusion, not providing an argument. > A society allowing this would quickly deteriorate into a system where the rich just buy the desired behavior from the poor That's already the system we have. I can entice people to do all sorts of things that they would rather not do, because I have money, like cook food for me, build airplanes that I can fly in, and so on. > and we would end up with an oligarchy instead of a democracy. We're not talking about making it legal to spend money to influence voting or politics, so I don't follow this. > How would you design a society under these conditions? My argument doesn't even rely on this veil of ignorance! Even if I KNEW I was going to be reincarnated as a poor beggar, why wouldn't I design society to give myself more choices, rather than fewer? It's not like anyone would be forced to sell their kidneys if they don't want to.
    - mafuy 8y ago
      From your reply I think you did not entirely understand the parent's reasoning. I think you don't follow the consequences of your points to the end, where it becomes visible that they are not desirable. I believe that is what the parent is aiming at.
      - umanwizard 8y ago
        Instead of just saying that it's obvious, it's visible, etc., can you explain the reasoning?
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        One scenario is easy to figure out: Once it's simple for poor beggars to sell their kidneys, it becomes normalized and common. It's expected that you'll sell your kidney or you clearly don't need help that badly. The price drops from abundant desperate supply until it's only enough to live on for a few months. A few years down the road and you have just as many poor beggars but all of them are missing a kidney and less resilient to illness. The root problem here is that if people are put in desperate situations, some amount of choice is forcibly removed from them. Certain agreements can't be fairly negotiated unless you remove the desperation first.
    - wsy 8y ago
      The core idea is to limit the choices of the rich, not to limit the choices of the poor. You will be prosecuted if you buy a kidney, or if you kill a human, not if you sell a kidney or your life. With respect to your interpretation of the veil of ignorance, if you knew you were going to be a beggar, why on earth would you want to design the society in such a way that selling your kidneys or life can become the best option left to you (or anybody else in that society)? And if you are able to design it in such a way that it is not the best option, then outlawing to buy such things would not impact your life as beggar negatively.
yellowapple 8y ago
If the grandfather consents to it, then what is actually wrong with him taking up that offer? Your thought experiment (or at least your "hope" re: the "correct" answer) presupposes that suicide is wrong. Personally, I believe the only one who is allowed to dictate whether I live or die is myself; if I want to die, and have good reason to want to die (financial security for my children and grandchildren would certainly be compelling!), then that's my right, and it ain't your place to deny me that right.
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  > If the grandfather consents to it, then what is actually wrong with him taking up that offer? As it turns out consent[0] isn't enough in modern society (though, apparently, cannibalism is ok). [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/04/germany.lukeharding https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/04/germany.lukeha...
- wsy 8y ago
  No, it doesn't tell anything about suicide. It is about the question: should one be allowed to buy everything, or are there limits? To emphasize: NOT should one be allowed to sell everything.
  - yellowapple 8y ago
    But those are fundamentally intertwined. If nobody's allowed to buy something, then how is anyone expected to be allowed to sell something? A purchase and sale are not independent events.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      They are intertwined, but the morals of buying are a lot clearer. So what's your answer?
      - yellowapple 8y ago
        My answer is that if it can be sold, then it must be able to be bought. My right to sell my existence is meaningless without the right for others to buy it. Amy attempt to assert otherwise - i.e. to try to sell something which nobody is allowed to buy - would be entrapment and - IMO - immoral. Either ban both sides or allow both sides; in this case, I'd vote the latter.

by wsy 8y ago

umanwizard 8y ago

You first -- on what principles do you think the grandfather's choice in your example should be illegal?

wsy 8y ago
Illegal simply because it is murder, regardless how much money the murderer pays in advance. Immoral because human life and dignity should not become a tradeable commodity. A society allowing this would quickly deteriorate into a system where the rich just buy the desired behavior from the poor, and we would end up with an oligarchy instead of a democracy. Another angle to object would be Rawls's theory of justice: suppose you would have to design a society, but you wouldn't know into which place of this society you would be born into. You could be born as son of Bill Gates, or as daughter of the poor homeless beggar at the next corner. How would you design a society under these conditions?
- umanwizard 8y ago
  Edit to state the central point clearly at the top: why do you think restricting their range of possible choices "protects the poor and weak" ? If you have a shitty job, would you be better off getting fired? No, because presumably you already had the ability to quit. (Anticipating someone jumping on me for the analogy: I'm obviously not saying having a shitty job is equivalent to being in such dire straits that someone would consider selling their kidney. I recognize the a huge difference in degree. I'm just illustrating the point.) > Immoral because human life and dignity should not become a tradeable commodity. This is just restating your conclusion, not providing an argument. > A society allowing this would quickly deteriorate into a system where the rich just buy the desired behavior from the poor That's already the system we have. I can entice people to do all sorts of things that they would rather not do, because I have money, like cook food for me, build airplanes that I can fly in, and so on. > and we would end up with an oligarchy instead of a democracy. We're not talking about making it legal to spend money to influence voting or politics, so I don't follow this. > How would you design a society under these conditions? My argument doesn't even rely on this veil of ignorance! Even if I KNEW I was going to be reincarnated as a poor beggar, why wouldn't I design society to give myself more choices, rather than fewer? It's not like anyone would be forced to sell their kidneys if they don't want to.
  - mafuy 8y ago
    From your reply I think you did not entirely understand the parent's reasoning. I think you don't follow the consequences of your points to the end, where it becomes visible that they are not desirable. I believe that is what the parent is aiming at.
    - umanwizard 8y ago
      Instead of just saying that it's obvious, it's visible, etc., can you explain the reasoning?
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        One scenario is easy to figure out: Once it's simple for poor beggars to sell their kidneys, it becomes normalized and common. It's expected that you'll sell your kidney or you clearly don't need help that badly. The price drops from abundant desperate supply until it's only enough to live on for a few months. A few years down the road and you have just as many poor beggars but all of them are missing a kidney and less resilient to illness. The root problem here is that if people are put in desperate situations, some amount of choice is forcibly removed from them. Certain agreements can't be fairly negotiated unless you remove the desperation first.
  - wsy 8y ago
    The core idea is to limit the choices of the rich, not to limit the choices of the poor. You will be prosecuted if you buy a kidney, or if you kill a human, not if you sell a kidney or your life. With respect to your interpretation of the veil of ignorance, if you knew you were going to be a beggar, why on earth would you want to design the society in such a way that selling your kidneys or life can become the best option left to you (or anybody else in that society)? And if you are able to design it in such a way that it is not the best option, then outlawing to buy such things would not impact your life as beggar negatively.

yellowapple 8y ago

If the grandfather consents to it, then what is actually wrong with him taking up that offer? Your thought experiment (or at least your "hope" re: the "correct" answer) presupposes that suicide is wrong. Personally, I believe the only one who is allowed to dictate whether I live or die is myself; if I want to die, and have good reason to want to die (financial security for my children and grandchildren would certainly be compelling!), then that's my right, and it ain't your place to deny me that right.

UncleEntity 8y ago
> If the grandfather consents to it, then what is actually wrong with him taking up that offer? As it turns out consent[0] isn't enough in modern society (though, apparently, cannibalism is ok). [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/04/germany.lukeharding https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/04/germany.lukeha...
wsy 8y ago
No, it doesn't tell anything about suicide. It is about the question: should one be allowed to buy everything, or are there limits? To emphasize: NOT should one be allowed to sell everything.
- yellowapple 8y ago
  But those are fundamentally intertwined. If nobody's allowed to buy something, then how is anyone expected to be allowed to sell something? A purchase and sale are not independent events.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    They are intertwined, but the morals of buying are a lot clearer. So what's your answer?
    - yellowapple 8y ago
      My answer is that if it can be sold, then it must be able to be bought. My right to sell my existence is meaningless without the right for others to buy it. Amy attempt to assert otherwise - i.e. to try to sell something which nobody is allowed to buy - would be entrapment and - IMO - immoral. Either ban both sides or allow both sides; in this case, I'd vote the latter.