3 ms·

Sorry, what? You're saying that an attractive person is more deserving of being saved than an unattractive person? Just so you know, a bunch of people, whi iden

Sorry, what? You're saying that an attractive person is more deserving of being saved than an unattractive person? Just so you know, a bunch of people, whi identify as 'not eugenicists' do not agree with you.

ZephyrBlu 5y ago
I don't especially agree with that, but I realize that we have a subconscious bias towards attractive people and that people in general are probably more likely to save an attractive person over an unattractive person.
omginternets 5y ago
Im curious, what do you think or his stronger argument: that intelligent and able people should be favored in the event that only a handful of people can be saved? I’m not sure I agree, but I can see where he’s coming from.
- boffinism 5y ago
  I was brought up to believe we should aim to save the people least able to save themselves. That we shouldn't make comparative value judgements about human lives in that situation. In the old days they said "women and children first", not "strong, attractive geniuses first".
nefitty 5y ago
Just pick any random trait and assume that society values that. The hypothetical is basically saying, “This human has traits that society values, therefore, between a choice of someone who has the trait vs not, we should side with society and choose the person who has the trait.” In this case, the assumption is that society values beauty or aesthetic pleasure (which might be connected to some evolutionary imperative). It does require a cold distancing to arrive at conclusions like that. Some people find it hard to betray their own internal moral intuitions. I think that that is a symptom of the radical subjectivism/individualism that is dominant in Western thought. The question then is, do you value your individual, subjective intuitions, or do you value objective, disembodied concepts? For example, some of the conclusions that Peter Singer has reached are controversial, but his lines of thinking are arguably consistent, insofar as his ultimate aim is toward a system that respects all sentient beings’ interests judiciously, and does not prioritize the interests of any individual.

ZephyrBlu 5y ago

I don't especially agree with that, but I realize that we have a subconscious bias towards attractive people and that people in general are probably more likely to save an attractive person over an unattractive person.

omginternets 5y ago

Im curious, what do you think or his stronger argument: that intelligent and able people should be favored in the event that only a handful of people can be saved? I’m not sure I agree, but I can see where he’s coming from.

boffinism 5y ago
I was brought up to believe we should aim to save the people least able to save themselves. That we shouldn't make comparative value judgements about human lives in that situation. In the old days they said "women and children first", not "strong, attractive geniuses first".

nefitty 5y ago

Just pick any random trait and assume that society values that. The hypothetical is basically saying, “This human has traits that society values, therefore, between a choice of someone who has the trait vs not, we should side with society and choose the person who has the trait.” In this case, the assumption is that society values beauty or aesthetic pleasure (which might be connected to some evolutionary imperative). It does require a cold distancing to arrive at conclusions like that. Some people find it hard to betray their own internal moral intuitions. I think that that is a symptom of the radical subjectivism/individualism that is dominant in Western thought. The question then is, do you value your individual, subjective intuitions, or do you value objective, disembodied concepts? For example, some of the conclusions that Peter Singer has reached are controversial, but his lines of thinking are arguably consistent, insofar as his ultimate aim is toward a system that respects all sentient beings’ interests judiciously, and does not prioritize the interests of any individual.