3 ms·

Incorrect, on both counts. Especially the latter, because morality isn't absolute. What you think is a moral right can be different from what I think is a moral

by bhupy 6y ago

Incorrect, on both counts. Especially the latter, because morality isn't absolute. What you think is a moral right can be different from what I think is a moral right.

pmiller2 6y ago
Under what moral framework do I have the right to cause the death of innocent people simply because I want a haircut? Or, because I'm a billionaire who wants to make more money? Do I have the right to kill you in self defense for suggesting so?
- bhupy 6y ago
  > Under what moral framework do I have the right to cause the death of innocent people simply because I want a haircut? The same moral framework under which you have the right to contribute to killing 35,000 people/year because you want a quick/convenient way to get to work everyday.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Except that I don't kill 35,000 people per year. Try again.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Yes, and a COVID-negative individual doesn't kill, in your words, "60,000+ people" if they want to go about their lives during a pandemic.
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Well, in fact, I have contributed to killing 0 people in a car accident by driving. Can you reframe your objection now? If I spread the coronavirus by going about my day as normal, how many infections would that result in, and how many deaths, hmm?
        bhupy 6y ago
        Well, in fact, I have contributed to killing 0 people by getting a haircut during COVID! Can you maybe try a little harder to grasp the analogy?
        pmiller2 6y ago
        There is no analogy to be had. When I get in my car, the overhwelming probability is that absolutely nobody will be killed by my action, including myself. If we resume "normal life," the overhwelming probabilty is that I will eventually contract the coronavirus, and there is a significant probability that I will be killed, or that my actions would kill someone else. Do you not see the difference? Try a little harder to grasp reality.
        bhupy 6y ago
        There absolutely is an analogy: in both cases, the risk you do as an individual in a vacuum is nearly 0. The aggregate risk of everyone engaging in that behavior is not only non-zero, but results in tens of thousands of deaths. If we all started driving our cars again, the overwhelming probability is that someone will eventually get into a car accident and die, and in aggregate we've observed that to be about 35,000 every year. If we all resumed a "normal life", the overwhelming probability is that 60,000+ people will die from COVID.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        > There absolutely is an analogy: in both cases, the risk you do as an individual in a vacuum is nearly 0. This is absolutely untrue. > In order to achieve herd immunity, scientists say that a community would need to have at least 60% of its population infected. That’s the lowest estimate I’ve been told. Other scientists have told me 80% to 90%. The reason this percentage isn’t precisely known is because it depends on things like exactly how contagious the virus is and also whether people who have been infected are immune forever, or if they lose immunity after a while, which researchers also are furiously working to figure out. [0] With an infection fatality rate of 0.5% (which is on the conservative side), resuming normal activity means between 1.5 and 4.5% of the population will likely die. This is not an insignificant risk at all. In contrast, 35,000 dead from traffic accidents is .01% of the US population. This is precisely why your so called "analogy" is invalid. Why do you not realize this? --- [0]: https://www.propublica.org/article/what-antibody-studies-can-tell-you-and-more-importantly-what-they-cant https://www.propublica.org/article/what-antibody-studies-can...

by bhupy 6y ago

Incorrect, on both counts. Especially the latter, because morality isn't absolute. What you think is a moral right can be different from what I think is a moral right.

pmiller2 6y ago

Under what moral framework do I have the right to cause the death of innocent people simply because I want a haircut? Or, because I'm a billionaire who wants to make more money? Do I have the right to kill you in self defense for suggesting so?

bhupy 6y ago
> Under what moral framework do I have the right to cause the death of innocent people simply because I want a haircut? The same moral framework under which you have the right to contribute to killing 35,000 people/year because you want a quick/convenient way to get to work everyday.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Except that I don't kill 35,000 people per year. Try again.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Yes, and a COVID-negative individual doesn't kill, in your words, "60,000+ people" if they want to go about their lives during a pandemic.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Well, in fact, I have contributed to killing 0 people in a car accident by driving. Can you reframe your objection now? If I spread the coronavirus by going about my day as normal, how many infections would that result in, and how many deaths, hmm?
      - bhupy 6y ago
        Well, in fact, I have contributed to killing 0 people by getting a haircut during COVID! Can you maybe try a little harder to grasp the analogy?
        pmiller2 6y ago
        There is no analogy to be had. When I get in my car, the overhwelming probability is that absolutely nobody will be killed by my action, including myself. If we resume "normal life," the overhwelming probabilty is that I will eventually contract the coronavirus, and there is a significant probability that I will be killed, or that my actions would kill someone else. Do you not see the difference? Try a little harder to grasp reality.
        bhupy 6y ago
        There absolutely is an analogy: in both cases, the risk you do as an individual in a vacuum is nearly 0. The aggregate risk of everyone engaging in that behavior is not only non-zero, but results in tens of thousands of deaths. If we all started driving our cars again, the overwhelming probability is that someone will eventually get into a car accident and die, and in aggregate we've observed that to be about 35,000 every year. If we all resumed a "normal life", the overwhelming probability is that 60,000+ people will die from COVID.
        pmiller2 6y ago
        > There absolutely is an analogy: in both cases, the risk you do as an individual in a vacuum is nearly 0. This is absolutely untrue. > In order to achieve herd immunity, scientists say that a community would need to have at least 60% of its population infected. That’s the lowest estimate I’ve been told. Other scientists have told me 80% to 90%. The reason this percentage isn’t precisely known is because it depends on things like exactly how contagious the virus is and also whether people who have been infected are immune forever, or if they lose immunity after a while, which researchers also are furiously working to figure out. [0] With an infection fatality rate of 0.5% (which is on the conservative side), resuming normal activity means between 1.5 and 4.5% of the population will likely die. This is not an insignificant risk at all. In contrast, 35,000 dead from traffic accidents is .01% of the US population. This is precisely why your so called "analogy" is invalid. Why do you not realize this? --- [0]: https://www.propublica.org/article/what-antibody-studies-can-tell-you-and-more-importantly-what-they-cant https://www.propublica.org/article/what-antibody-studies-can...