3 ms·
The analogy is not "false", it's used to show you that we all decide how many lost lives we find to be acceptable for modern society to function. Your parents
by bhupy 6y ago
The analogy is not "false", it's used to show you that we all decide how many lost lives we find to be acceptable for modern society to function.
Your parents have a non-zero statistical probability of dying from a car crash, the same way that they have a non-zero statistical probability of dying from COVID due to "normal activity". The probability of the latter is undeniably higher than that of the former, and you appear to consider the former to be acceptable.
I mean no disrespect to your parents, but you have to accept that for some people, they draw the line differently, and the probability threshold is within their limit.
> You seem to have an inordinate amount of trouble finding a single justification for endangering people at this scale, even though there are apparently LOADS of frameworks that would say it's okay. Why is that?
I'm going to emphasize "At this scale", in your statement, because you're implicitly arguing that THIS scale is unacceptable. I'm simply arguing that, while that may be true for you — and for the record, it's also unacceptable to me — you have to understand that different people have different acceptable thresholds. You think that one loses the moral right to entertain the deaths of innocent people at some arbitrary threshold. But it's arbitrary, and unique to you.
- pmiller2 6y agoAgain, I have not stated that I accept 35,000 deaths per year so capitalism can continue on its merry way. I again invite you to quote where I have said so, if you don't believe me. I have simply stated that the difference in scale means that an argument that justifies 35,000 deaths cannot justify 5,250,000+ deaths.
- bhupy 6y ago> I have simply stated that the difference in scale means that an argument that justifies 35,000 deaths cannot justify 5,250,000+ deaths. at some point the number of deaths is high enough that you decide that "the scale is different and this can no longer be justified". I'm simply stating that this limit is arbitrary, and debatable.
- pmiller2 6y agoI never said that any number of deaths was acceptable. Try again.
- bhupy 6y agoOkay, so you might hold an absolutist position on the acceptable number of deaths, that the acceptable number of deaths is exactly 0. Assuming that is the case, do you really believe that people don't have the moral right to entertain any amount of deaths for "economic activity"? If so, this is the least enforceable violation of your version of "human rights", possibly in the history of humanity.
- pmiller2 6y agoSince when does enforceability have any impact on whether something is a human right or not? One aspect of "human rights" is that they are universal. They apply to both me, you, and everyone else on the planet equally. And, it is entirely reasonable to believe that nobody has the right to end my life but me. So, yes, I believe 0 is the correct number of lives to be sacrificed for economic activity, even though we don't come close to that practically.
- bhupy 6y agoAnd it’s totally fine for you to have that point of view. You have to accept that I and the majority of others have a different point of view (I’m not an absolutist about it).