5 ms·

Doesn't this reasoning lead to all sorts of problems? There are countless people around the world that would be helped by a few extra dollars each week. As long

by todd8 6y ago

Doesn't this reasoning lead to all sorts of problems? There are countless people around the world that would be helped by a few extra dollars each week. As long as you personally are living above a subsistence level by this reasoning you should be taxed to improve their lives. Or say, that two people that have lost their kidneys due to driving drunk and each having an accident, and that your kidneys are a good donor match. Should we take both your kidneys and give one to each of the drunk drivers? Only one person would suffer (too bad for you), but the two others would gain. Or imagine, your daughter going to elementary school with her new birthday present, a stuffed animal. Three classmates are envious and jealous, should their teacher throw the little stuffed animal in the trash, making three classmates happy at the expense of you daughter? Wouldn't it make sense by this reasoning for you to be forced to take a couple of homeless people as roommates? It would make their lives much better (even more so if you were forced to prepare meals for them), this only inconveniences you while benefiting your new roommates.

jdlshore 6y ago
You are engaging in the slippery slope fallacy: specifically, you’re taking an existing proposal and exaggerating its possible consequences by ignoring the possibility of a middle ground.
- ls612 6y ago
  What you call the slippery slope fallacy is really someone asking for a limiting principle on your argument. Responding like that strongly implies that there isn’t one.
  - jdlshore 6y ago
    It wasn’t my argument. However, I think the limiting principle of their argument was clearly stated: if harm to the individual is less than the gain to the many, it’s ethical (according to them). Where that line is crossed is going to be different for everyone. However, I think that most people would agree that the line is crossed well before throwing away children’s toys or killing people for their kidneys. Hence the slippery slope fallacy.
    - todd8 6y ago
      It seems that the principle in question, if applied, would result in the redistribution of all wealth until everyone was equal. Wouldn't it? However, this can't be all because Joe (not a real person) might go and gamble away all of this sudden windfall. Meanwhile Jane (not a real person) might also go and gamble and win, doubling her net-worth. Is it now time to redistribute again? Furthermore, once you realize how this works, doesn't this change people's behavior in a negative way. Why bother working when you end up with the working people's savings anyway. Many will likely say, "Oh, but your argument is silly, that's clearly not how the principle will be applied." If that is so, just describe how it should be applied? Is the goal equal happiness or is it equal wealth for everyone? Some won't be happy without spending lots of money extravagantly, others will be happy with a simple "safety net". Again, how are we to think about this once we have decided that it is up to us to determine what to do with someone else's money for the sake of a gain to the many. It seems to me that this ethical principle is far short of being useful in deciding how much to take from other people.
      - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
        You're kind of missing my point. The goal is to make good decisions with low risk potential that help a lot of people. Say the local homeless shelter can't make rent, and it's February, 3ft of snow, 0F overnight. In this specific set of circumstances I would argue it is ethically necessary to tax the wealthiest of the city fairly on a proportional basis to stop these people from dying due to exposure. Or even to commandeer buildings and resources, so long as the suffering parties are not unduly burdened, e.g. there are 10 millionaires and a 10 millionaire. The 10 pay 50%, the one pays 50%. If they have to sell a plane, camp, boat or painting so be it. That's just the cost of being a good neighbor. If people don't want to do these things then they shouldn't be wealthy, or maybe work to actively prevent cities from decaying to the point where people protest outside their house with a prop guillotine. Another example, if we nationalize the health care system and a million people lose their jobs but 100 million benefit from cheaper care that isn't profit motivated then it is also ethically necessary. This is based upon made up numbers and should not be taken as actual argument for measures that should be taken. Smarter people than I make those arguments, talk to them. I'm only trying to explain my take on the ethics of hurting few to help many. That being said killing someone to rob them is still morally reprehensible, as would be forcing a billionaire into the streets to turn all their houses into homeless shelters. Though there is a good discussion to be had about ethical ramifications of living in a mansion with armed guards and private jets when their staff collect benefits. In that case I think it's clear something must be done. What is not easy to decide, and is a severe moral failing of the people that comprise local, state and federal governments. I typed this on my phone, if it's unclear or has errors I'm sorry and I will be happy to clarify myself positions or correct any errors.
Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
It can, if the only tool is a hammer then everything is a nail. I'm not making broad statements about making fast massive sweeping changes. Not only would such undertakings such as the ones you've elucidated be tremendously difficult, they almost certainly would cause far more harm in the attempt. If you would find it helpful I can explain specifically why I'm against each of these proposals,but I think it's more succinct to say: When evaluating a proposal that could make people's lives better at the expense of others we must weigh the harm against the benefit. If I were to take a billionaire and make them a millionaire to do great things for millions I will usually argue that it is ethically necessary for one with so much to suffer for the many. However, I do not support reckless, violent, or ill conceived proposals to hurt one to help many. Instead, we must all lower our weapons and come together to solve these problems. If we take too long then those with less restraint will make many decisions for us, the consequences of which will not be distributed ethically, fairly, sanely or legally.

by todd8 6y ago

jdlshore 6y ago

You are engaging in the slippery slope fallacy: specifically, you’re taking an existing proposal and exaggerating its possible consequences by ignoring the possibility of a middle ground.

ls612 6y ago
What you call the slippery slope fallacy is really someone asking for a limiting principle on your argument. Responding like that strongly implies that there isn’t one.
- jdlshore 6y ago
  It wasn’t my argument. However, I think the limiting principle of their argument was clearly stated: if harm to the individual is less than the gain to the many, it’s ethical (according to them). Where that line is crossed is going to be different for everyone. However, I think that most people would agree that the line is crossed well before throwing away children’s toys or killing people for their kidneys. Hence the slippery slope fallacy.
  - todd8 6y ago
    It seems that the principle in question, if applied, would result in the redistribution of all wealth until everyone was equal. Wouldn't it? However, this can't be all because Joe (not a real person) might go and gamble away all of this sudden windfall. Meanwhile Jane (not a real person) might also go and gamble and win, doubling her net-worth. Is it now time to redistribute again? Furthermore, once you realize how this works, doesn't this change people's behavior in a negative way. Why bother working when you end up with the working people's savings anyway. Many will likely say, "Oh, but your argument is silly, that's clearly not how the principle will be applied." If that is so, just describe how it should be applied? Is the goal equal happiness or is it equal wealth for everyone? Some won't be happy without spending lots of money extravagantly, others will be happy with a simple "safety net". Again, how are we to think about this once we have decided that it is up to us to determine what to do with someone else's money for the sake of a gain to the many. It seems to me that this ethical principle is far short of being useful in deciding how much to take from other people.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
      You're kind of missing my point. The goal is to make good decisions with low risk potential that help a lot of people. Say the local homeless shelter can't make rent, and it's February, 3ft of snow, 0F overnight. In this specific set of circumstances I would argue it is ethically necessary to tax the wealthiest of the city fairly on a proportional basis to stop these people from dying due to exposure. Or even to commandeer buildings and resources, so long as the suffering parties are not unduly burdened, e.g. there are 10 millionaires and a 10 millionaire. The 10 pay 50%, the one pays 50%. If they have to sell a plane, camp, boat or painting so be it. That's just the cost of being a good neighbor. If people don't want to do these things then they shouldn't be wealthy, or maybe work to actively prevent cities from decaying to the point where people protest outside their house with a prop guillotine. Another example, if we nationalize the health care system and a million people lose their jobs but 100 million benefit from cheaper care that isn't profit motivated then it is also ethically necessary. This is based upon made up numbers and should not be taken as actual argument for measures that should be taken. Smarter people than I make those arguments, talk to them. I'm only trying to explain my take on the ethics of hurting few to help many. That being said killing someone to rob them is still morally reprehensible, as would be forcing a billionaire into the streets to turn all their houses into homeless shelters. Though there is a good discussion to be had about ethical ramifications of living in a mansion with armed guards and private jets when their staff collect benefits. In that case I think it's clear something must be done. What is not easy to decide, and is a severe moral failing of the people that comprise local, state and federal governments. I typed this on my phone, if it's unclear or has errors I'm sorry and I will be happy to clarify myself positions or correct any errors.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago

It can, if the only tool is a hammer then everything is a nail. I'm not making broad statements about making fast massive sweeping changes. Not only would such undertakings such as the ones you've elucidated be tremendously difficult, they almost certainly would cause far more harm in the attempt. If you would find it helpful I can explain specifically why I'm against each of these proposals,but I think it's more succinct to say: When evaluating a proposal that could make people's lives better at the expense of others we must weigh the harm against the benefit. If I were to take a billionaire and make them a millionaire to do great things for millions I will usually argue that it is ethically necessary for one with so much to suffer for the many. However, I do not support reckless, violent, or ill conceived proposals to hurt one to help many. Instead, we must all lower our weapons and come together to solve these problems. If we take too long then those with less restraint will make many decisions for us, the consequences of which will not be distributed ethically, fairly, sanely or legally.