3 ms·

> 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 yo

by 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...
        bhupy 6y ago
        > 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. Right, so you are essentially making a tradeoff! You have decided that losing 0.01% of the US population is, to use your framing, an "insignificant risk". I don't disagree with that. Your original argument was that we simply do not have the right to promote or otherwise further actions that will unnecessarily cause the death of innocents, even if there is an economic tradeoff to be had. I argued that we absolutely have the right to make tradeoffs with lives, we do it all the time. Sometimes the tradeoff is worth it, sometimes it isn't. You have just argued to me that "the analogy is invalid" because in one case a lot of people die, and in the other case far fewer people die. You are essentially making the same tradeoff, under the same moral framework — only your boundary for what constitutes an acceptable number of deaths is different. This is a difference in degree, and not kind.

by bhupy 6y ago

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...
        bhupy 6y ago
        > 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. Right, so you are essentially making a tradeoff! You have decided that losing 0.01% of the US population is, to use your framing, an "insignificant risk". I don't disagree with that. Your original argument was that we simply do not have the right to promote or otherwise further actions that will unnecessarily cause the death of innocents, even if there is an economic tradeoff to be had. I argued that we absolutely have the right to make tradeoffs with lives, we do it all the time. Sometimes the tradeoff is worth it, sometimes it isn't. You have just argued to me that "the analogy is invalid" because in one case a lot of people die, and in the other case far fewer people die. You are essentially making the same tradeoff, under the same moral framework — only your boundary for what constitutes an acceptable number of deaths is different. This is a difference in degree, and not kind.