Re: human sacrifice

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
> [Paul said:]
>
> > If you see a train about to hit five people, and you're
> > standing on a bridge above the train, and you know that the
> > only way to stop the train is to shove the heavy person (no
> > disrespect for the heavy meant here) in front of you down
> > onto the tracks to stop the train, killing the heavy person
> > -- what do you do?
>
> Ug! Surely you are not advocating killing the big guy?

But if you don't, the families of the five dead people will blame you
for deliberately allowing their deaths to occur. How do you talk your
way out of that.
>
> Also this 'intentional & deliberate human sacrifice'
> scenario does not seem to be a parallel situation.
>
This was not meant to be parallel to any existing situation (though
it is). The point was to illustrate the difficulty of
formulating "moral policies".

--- In metatuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_1098.html#1098
> >
> This was not meant to be parallel to any existing situation (though
> it is). The point was to illustrate the difficulty of
> formulating "moral policies".

Why, of course, and it has been recently even *more directly*
illustrated in the imperative of our armed forces in shooting down
civilian aircraft that are rushing toward skyscrapers...

JP

>> [Paul said:]

>>> If you see a train about to hit five people, and you're
>>> standing on a bridge above the train, and you know that the
>>> only way to stop the train is to shove the heavy person (no
>>> disrespect for the heavy meant here) in front of you down
>>> onto the tracks to stop the train, killing the heavy person
>>> -- what do you do?

[I asked:]

>> Ug! Surely you are not advocating killing the big guy?

[Paul:]

> But if you don't, the families of the five dead people will
> blame you for deliberately allowing their deaths to occur.

??? No they wouldn't. Unless they were crazy. Its
really unimaginable that any families would actually
fault someone for not killing someone else in such a
circumstance.

> How do you talk your way out of that.

Maybe something like this: "That's right -- I didn't
deliberately murder the big guy even though you wanted
me to in retrospect. I'm sorry for your loss but I
think your grief is making you not think straight."

>> Also this 'intentional & deliberate human sacrifice'
>> scenario does not seem to be a parallel situation.

> This was not meant to be parallel to any existing situation

"Was so."

> (though it is).

"Is not."

> The point was to illustrate the difficulty of
> formulating "moral policies".

I guess the point was lost on me; I am unable to draw
the parallel you are setting up.

- J

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
>
> >> [Paul said:]
>
> >>> If you see a train about to hit five people, and you're
> >>> standing on a bridge above the train, and you know that the
> >>> only way to stop the train is to shove the heavy person (no
> >>> disrespect for the heavy meant here) in front of you down
> >>> onto the tracks to stop the train, killing the heavy person
> >>> -- what do you do?
>
> [I asked:]
>
> >> Ug! Surely you are not advocating killing the big guy?
>
> [Paul:]
>
> > But if you don't, the families of the five dead people will
> > blame you for deliberately allowing their deaths to occur.
>
> ??? No they wouldn't. Unless they were crazy. Its
> really unimaginable that any families would actually
> fault someone for not killing someone else in such a
> circumstance.

Not so unimaginable in today's "sue you, sue me" society, especially
if you're an entity that has a reputation for pushing people around
all the time anyway.
> >> Also this 'intentional & deliberate human sacrifice'
> >> scenario does not seem to be a parallel situation.
>
> > This was not meant to be parallel to any existing situation
>
> "Was so."

No it wasn't.

If you can't take me at my word, then I shouldn't bother speaking to
you -- there would be no point.

> > The point was to illustrate the difficulty of
> > formulating "moral policies".
>
> I guess the point was lost on me; I am unable to draw
> the parallel you are setting up.

Is it okay for a society to prescribe mandatory vaccinations for
children, even if the vaccination causes fatal infection 0.001% of
the time, on the justification that the vaccinations will save far
more lives than they will jeopordize?

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J. Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:
>
> > From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
>
> > Is it okay for a society to prescribe mandatory vaccinations
> > for children, even if the vaccination causes fatal infection
> > 0.001% of the time, on the justification that the
> > vaccinations will save far more lives than they will
> > jeopordize?
>
> The answer is no.

Interesting. Would it surprise you if you happened to learn that you
were in the minority on this issue?