4 ms·
> They are however, willing to accept the deaths of 1k kids if it meant saving the lives of 40k people. I bet they're not. People instinctively reject utilitar
by taylodl 1y ago
> They are however, willing to accept the deaths of 1k kids if it meant saving the lives of 40k people.
I bet they're not. People instinctively reject utilitarian trade-offs, especially when it involves children. The idea of sacrificing a few for the many might make sense on paper, but in practice, it’s emotionally and politically untenable.
- gruez 1y agoNote that 0-14 year olds make up 18% of the US population, so assuming the 40k deaths in the counterfactuals are evenly distributed, that'd imply 7.2k kids dying as well, still worse than the 1k.
- taylodl 1y agoIn the United States, approximately 1,100 children under the age of 13 die each year in motor vehicle crashes. Not that it matters, because you're still making a utilitarian argument, and the majority of people, including Americans, reject that kind of reasoning. More importantly, utilitarian arguments rarely persuade lawmakers. Policy decisions are driven by public sentiment, political incentives, and moral framing - not abstract cost-benefit calculations.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago>not abstract cost-benefit calculations. Comparing mortality/morbidity data is the opposite of abstract. It’s about as defined as you can get in a discussion about safety.
- taylodl 1y agoYou're really not understanding how much people hate utilitarian arguments and those making them.