Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 15:36 |
Epignosis wrote:
Padraic wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Padraic wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
In Pat's hypothetical, the treatment exists.
|
Bad terminology on my part - in your question, the cures/treatments are available: the producers of the treatments are willing to provide one with them for (presumably) some amount of money. In Pat's scenario (presumably), the treatment is unavailable: the producer will not distribute the treatment at all. |
That doesn't change the thrust of my question. Let me go at it a better way...let's say a cure is available, but costs $1 trillion a dose. No amount of feasible fundraising will get that, and certainly not for more than one person. Thus, a cure is available, but for a very high cost. At what point is something so expensive that it is considered "unavailable" and T would be willing to steal the cure for people?
He (evidently) would not try to steal a cure that is available for $10, so where is that line?
|
What's the practical difference between selling something such that no one can possibly buy it and not selling it?
|
There isn't one. That's what I'm saying. And I'm asking what price point would stealing a cure for a disease be ethical?
|
Stealing isn't ethical. I'm pointing out that someone may apply a utilitarian, cost/benefit analysis to the situation and decide that the benefit of the theft outweighs the personal cost (the legal consequence of theft).
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 15:42 |
Padraic wrote:
Oh, Rob, you Godwin'd the discussion. | I specifically avoid such talk because of that reason, but in this case, it is not an analogy at all- it is a clear, historic, and horrific example of what happens when a regime declares that people's rights to life, liberty, and property are trumped by government.
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 15:47 |
Padraic wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Padraic wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Padraic wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
In Pat's hypothetical, the treatment exists.
|
Bad terminology on my part - in your question, the cures/treatments are available: the producers of the treatments are willing to provide one with them for (presumably) some amount of money. In Pat's scenario (presumably), the treatment is unavailable: the producer will not distribute the treatment at all. |
That doesn't change the thrust of my question. Let me go at it a better way...let's say a cure is available, but costs $1 trillion a dose. No amount of feasible fundraising will get that, and certainly not for more than one person. Thus, a cure is available, but for a very high cost. At what point is something so expensive that it is considered "unavailable" and T would be willing to steal the cure for people?
He (evidently) would not try to steal a cure that is available for $10, so where is that line?
|
What's the practical difference between selling something such that no one can possibly buy it and not selling it?
|
There isn't one. That's what I'm saying. And I'm asking what price point would stealing a cure for a disease be ethical?
|
Stealing isn't ethical. I'm pointing out that someone may apply a utilitarian, cost/benefit analysis to the situation and decide that the benefit of the theft outweighs the personal cost (the legal consequence of theft). | In that case, I would take it a step further. If my brain had some special property to cure any form of cancer, could I be killed and my brain taken to save any number of people? If a utilitarian would justify stealing via cost/benefit, what about murder?
Question stays the same no matter what scenario is raised- at what point is it justifiable to trump the individual rights of one person for the benefit of many?
|
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 15:56 |
Damned if I know - what's your answer?
|
|
jammun
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 16:00 |
Padraic wrote:
The military-industrial complex has given me a career, so I can't complain about it too much. |
Boeing put a roof over our heads and food on the table for 16 years. I ain't complaining.
|
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 16:05 |
Padraic wrote:
Damned if I know - what's your answer? | My answer would be absolutely not- it would not be okay, for the same reason it was wrong for a nation to exterminate a group of people it honestly believed was plaguing the country.
I would never ask for anyone to fight (and possibly die) in my stead, but I'm so grateful for those who voluntarily do. Likewise, if I got sick and it took someone dying to cure it, I would never ask that. But if someone volunteered to it, I would be earnestly thankful if I took them up on the offer (and thankful even if I didn't).
Edited by Epignosis - November 04 2010 at 16:09
|
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 16:10 |
My turn for silly hypothetical.
An alien ship comes down and gives you two options: you can shoot me in the head, killing me, or they will exterminate every other human being on the planet.
|
|
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 16:14 |
Epignosis wrote:
Padraic wrote:
Damned if I know - what's your answer? |
My answer would be absolutely not- it would not be okay, for the same reason it was wrong for a nation to exterminate a group of people it honestly believed was plaguing the country.
I would never ask for anyone to fight (and possibly die) in my stead, but I'm so grateful for those who voluntarily do. Likewise, if I got sick and it took someone dying to cure it, I would never ask that. But if someone volunteered to it, I would be earnestly thankful if I took them up on the offer (and thankful even if I didn't).
|
If it was your family who were dying. And someone had the drug to cure it. Would you steal it from them if they refused you it? And if you had to would you hurt them to get it?
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 16:34 |
Padraic wrote:
My turn for silly hypothetical.
An alien ship comes down and gives you two options: you can shoot me in the head, killing me, or they will exterminate every other human being on the planet. | Thinking about it while I cook.
Although if by "every other" you mean "all others," then humanity will be extinct no matter which I choose (just thinking out loud).
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 16:40 |
|
|
|
Paravion
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 17:29 |
Epiglottis wrote:
Padraic wrote:
My turn for silly hypothetical.
An alien ship comes down and gives you two options: you can shoot me in the head, killing me, or they will exterminate every other human being on the planet. |
Thinking about it while I cook.
Although if by "every other" you mean "all others," then humanity will be extinct no matter which I choose (just thinking out loud).
|
If you can mate with the female species of this alien race, humanity, partially, will live on.
I'd probably pursue self-interest and spare myself on the expense of every other human being. What worries me though, is how coexistence with this hostile alien race would be like.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 17:33 |
Epignosis wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
^ In practical terms, whoever has the most power in the country (perhaps the world) when things go bad. The hope lies in that hopefully it will be a western people/country that wields the power, who have at least mind to respect the individual as much as possible under extreme circumstances. As with most things, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Hard-nosed libertarians might want to keep it simple and draw it at zero incursion on one's rights, but in times of really great hardship, humanity might not be able to afford the luxury of the libertarian perspective.
|
Epignosis wrote:
And
if, stony, you don't see where this murky insidiousness lies, then just
know that the same justification you gave for trampling individual
rights to benefit everybody has been used to incredibly horrific ends.
|
|
I very much realize that, but I given the choice between trampling on one person's rights and getting a cure for a horrific disease to millions when all other options have failed versus letting him keep it because of his rights, it's the best option I see.
I can foresee this applied to multiple scenarios to the same result until you convince me absolute freedom under all circumstances is better not only for a small group and an isolated incident, but for all of humanity during all possible circumstances.
|
We've had plenty of convincing just in the 20th century. For Hitler, the dire circumstances was not a disease, but a people called Jews.
Until you unequivocally assert that all innocent citizens of a nation have very specific, inalienable rights that cannot be trampled on regardless the circumstances (and people willing to defend those rights), you will continue to have Hitlers in various shapes and sizes.
|
I'll take that as an admission of "libertarians can't come up with anything better for the circumstances." You can talk of Hitler all you want. The scary specter of somehow becoming Hitler by giving stealing a cure for AIDs and giving it away to people is not going to phase me. Bad things are sure to happen in your scenario; people will continue to die of AIDs as long as the singular greedy person keeps he cure away. In my situation, the roads to hell may be paved with good intentions, but at least the intentions are good and the immediate results speak for themselves, regardless of the unforeseeable future. But, hey, you had to Godwin the argument so you lost, anyway.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 17:36 |
Padraic wrote:
My turn for silly hypothetical.
An alien ship comes down and gives you two options: you can shoot me in the head, killing me, or they will exterminate every other human being on the planet. |
Man you guys are really bringing out the utilitarian in me. Tough choice, considering they might not actually do it. I'll say that if I initially said no, and they they blew up a large city and said they'd continue doing it, then yes I'd kill you.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 17:51 |
stonebeard wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
^ In practical terms, whoever has the most power in the country (perhaps the world) when things go bad. The hope lies in that hopefully it will be a western people/country that wields the power, who have at least mind to respect the individual as much as possible under extreme circumstances. As with most things, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Hard-nosed libertarians might want to keep it simple and draw it at zero incursion on one's rights, but in times of really great hardship, humanity might not be able to afford the luxury of the libertarian perspective.
|
Epignosis wrote:
And
if, stony, you don't see where this murky insidiousness lies, then just
know that the same justification you gave for trampling individual
rights to benefit everybody has been used to incredibly horrific ends.
|
|
I very much realize that, but I given the choice between trampling on one person's rights and getting a cure for a horrific disease to millions when all other options have failed versus letting him keep it because of his rights, it's the best option I see.
I can foresee this applied to multiple scenarios to the same result until you convince me absolute freedom under all circumstances is better not only for a small group and an isolated incident, but for all of humanity during all possible circumstances.
|
We've had plenty of convincing just in the 20th century. For Hitler, the dire circumstances was not a disease, but a people called Jews.
Until you unequivocally assert that all innocent citizens of a nation have very specific, inalienable rights that cannot be trampled on regardless the circumstances (and people willing to defend those rights), you continue to have Hitlers in various shapes and sizes.
|
I'll take that as an admission of "libertarians can't come up with anything better for the circumstances."
You can talk of Hitler all you want. The scary specter of somehow becoming Hitler by giving stealing a cure for AIDs and giving it away to people is not going to phase me. Bad things are sure to happen in your scenario; people will continue to die of AIDs as long as the singular greedy person keeps he cure away. In my situation, the roads to hell may be paved with good intentions, but at least the intentions are good and the immediate results speak for themselves, regardless of the unforeseeable future.
But, hey, you had to Godwin the argument so you lost, anyway.
| You said nothing but, "My intentions were good according to me, so I am right." I didn't "Godwin" anything. The holocaust happened. Why did it happen? Because someone decided an entire group of people must be disposed of to save a country. It's unfortunate that you must replace logic with Internet memes.
|
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 17:51 |
Epignosis wrote:
Padraic wrote:
My turn for silly hypothetical.
An alien ship comes down and gives you two options: you can shoot me in the head, killing me, or they will exterminate every other human being on the planet. |
Thinking about it while I cook.
Although if by "every other" you mean "all others," then humanity will be extinct no matter which I choose (just thinking out loud).
|
They'll spare me, and if you want, my wife so we can repopulate the species.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 17:52 |
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 18:19 |
Epignosis wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
^ In practical terms, whoever has the most power in the country (perhaps the world) when things go bad. The hope lies in that hopefully it will be a western people/country that wields the power, who have at least mind to respect the individual as much as possible under extreme circumstances. As with most things, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Hard-nosed libertarians might want to keep it simple and draw it at zero incursion on one's rights, but in times of really great hardship, humanity might not be able to afford the luxury of the libertarian perspective.
|
Epignosis wrote:
And
if, stony, you don't see where this murky insidiousness lies, then just
know that the same justification you gave for trampling individual
rights to benefit everybody has been used to incredibly horrific ends.
|
|
I very much realize that, but I given the choice between trampling on one person's rights and getting a cure for a horrific disease to millions when all other options have failed versus letting him keep it because of his rights, it's the best option I see.
I can foresee this applied to multiple scenarios to the same result until you convince me absolute freedom under all circumstances is better not only for a small group and an isolated incident, but for all of humanity during all possible circumstances.
|
We've had plenty of convincing just in the 20th century. For Hitler, the dire circumstances was not a disease, but a people called Jews.
Until you unequivocally assert that all innocent citizens of a nation have very specific, inalienable rights that cannot be trampled on regardless the circumstances (and people willing to defend those rights), you continue to have Hitlers in various shapes and sizes.
|
I'll take that as an admission of "libertarians can't come up with anything better for the circumstances."
You can talk of Hitler all you want. The scary specter of somehow becoming Hitler by giving stealing a cure for AIDs and giving it away to people is not going to phase me. Bad things are sure to happen in your scenario; people will continue to die of AIDs as long as the singular greedy person keeps he cure away. In my situation, the roads to hell may be paved with good intentions, but at least the intentions are good and the immediate results speak for themselves, regardless of the unforeseeable future.
But, hey, you had to Godwin the argument so you lost, anyway.
|
You said nothing but, "My intentions were good according to me, so I am right."
I didn't "Godwin" anything. The holocaust happened. Why did it happen? Because someone decided an entire group of people must be disposed of to save a country. It's unfortunate that you must replace logic with Internet memes.
|
I actually said my intentions were good, but on top of that I achieved an immediate positive result. On the contrary position, I state now that your intentions achieved nothing except an AIDs plagued immediate future. Oh joy. You really haven't addressed the libertarian perspective here though, except state the abstract "freedom at any cost" mantra. You imply my position is a slippery slope, and it might well be, but there isn't even a slope with your position (at least I assume it to be yours; you never really offered anything a libertarian would do, so let's hope it's something other than let millions die for one person's freedom).
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 18:32 |
stonebeard wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
^ In practical terms, whoever has the most power in the country (perhaps the world) when things go bad. The hope lies in that hopefully it will be a western people/country that wields the power, who have at least mind to respect the individual as much as possible under extreme circumstances. As with most things, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Hard-nosed libertarians might want to keep it simple and draw it at zero incursion on one's rights, but in times of really great hardship, humanity might not be able to afford the luxury of the libertarian perspective.
|
Epignosis wrote:
And
if, stony, you don't see where this murky insidiousness lies, then just
know that the same justification you gave for trampling individual
rights to benefit everybody has been used to incredibly horrific ends.
|
|
I very much realize that, but I given the choice between trampling on one person's rights and getting a cure for a horrific disease to millions when all other options have failed versus letting him keep it because of his rights, it's the best option I see.
I can foresee this applied to multiple scenarios to the same result until you convince me absolute freedom under all circumstances is better not only for a small group and an isolated incident, but for all of humanity during all possible circumstances.
|
We've had plenty of convincing just in the 20th century. For Hitler, the dire circumstances was not a disease, but a people called Jews.
Until you unequivocally assert that all innocent citizens of a nation have very specific, inalienable rights that cannot be trampled on regardless the circumstances (and people willing to defend those rights), you continue to have Hitlers in various shapes and sizes.
|
I'll take that as an admission of "libertarians can't come up with anything better for the circumstances."
You can talk of Hitler all you want. The scary specter of somehow becoming Hitler by giving stealing a cure for AIDs and giving it away to people is not going to phase me. Bad things are sure to happen in your scenario; people will continue to die of AIDs as long as the singular greedy person keeps he cure away. In my situation, the roads to hell may be paved with good intentions, but at least the intentions are good and the immediate results speak for themselves, regardless of the unforeseeable future.
But, hey, you had to Godwin the argument so you lost, anyway.
|
You said nothing but, "My intentions were good according to me, so I am right."
I didn't "Godwin" anything. The holocaust happened. Why did it happen? Because someone decided an entire group of people must be disposed of to save a country. It's unfortunate that you must replace logic with Internet memes.
|
I actually said my intentions were good, but on top of that I achieved an immediate positive result. On the contrary position, I state now that your intentions achieved nothing except an AIDs plagued immediate future. Oh joy.
You really haven't addressed the libertarian perspective here though, except state the abstract "freedom at any cost" mantra. You imply my position is a slippery slope, and it might well be, but there isn't even a slope with your position (at least I assume it to be yours; you never really offered anything a libertarian would do, so let's hope it's something other than let millions die for one person's freedom).
| I'm not really sure what you're saying (asking?). Am I supposed to "address the libertarian perspective here?"
I'm going to go play cards with my son.
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 18:39 |
Basically just what you would do in the situation. We've been criticizing my opinion this whole time, and I've been assuming you'd just let millions go on suffering dying when a few people are in the way of their immediate reprieve. If this is a wrong assumption explain what you would do. If it is a correct assumption, I find it curious how I'm being the bad guy.
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: November 04 2010 at 18:50 |
OK, sounds like a good choice. Do it soon so I won't have to pay estate taxes.
|
|