= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cata comments on The Trolley Problem: Dodging moral questions - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (129)
The top 10% of humanity accumulates 30% of the worlds wealth. 20% of the humanity dies from preventable, premature death (and suffers horribly)
The proposition...
In this scenario 1% of people are forced to live modestly in order to save up to 20% of humanity. No-one need to kill or be killed.
It would probably be reasonable to say the top 20% of earners would be against this proposal. The majority of the bottom 40% would be in favour. If your reading this you are likely on of the other 40% of humankind who can choose to support or reject the proposal. What would you say?
I am aware there are many holes in the proposition (unintended consequences etc) however this is a hypothetical that is based on a real situation that exists now that we are all contributing to in one way or another.
This is just too complicated a scenario to boil down to such a simple question. The efficacy of that kind of redistribution would depend on all sorts of other properties of the economy and of society. I can imagine cultures in which that would work well, and others in which it would trigger a bloodbath. I don't think it's meaningful to ask whether someone would support it "in general."
I was aware of the many possible negative consequences such an action could have ( and the impossiblity of it ever having a chance of happening) however if there was a majority support across a society above 75% would the basic idea of sacrificing a small number of people to a modest lifestyle in order to save a large number of people be something you could support. Would a bloodbath be triggered with such support. I pose the question and think its a meaninful question because it is in a "general" sense a decision societies and civilization as a whole ( and by extension all individuals) are making every day.
I spend $70 a month on entertainment. If I redirect this money I could save 7 people a month from a preventable premature death. We all make these decisions. If the question was a choice between throwing the fat person in front of the trolley of yourself in order to save people which would you prefer.
Also remember it is the "fat person" or wealthy that propels the trolley into these people to varying degrees.
IIRC, the actual cost of saving a life is about $100-$1000, but certainly not $10.
Unless you're willing to save expected lives instead of having a high chance of saving currently-existing lives, of course. (In which case (IIRC) the cost of saving around 8 expected lives is $1, by Anna Salamon's estimate.)
How does she estimate $0.13 per expected life saved?