lessdazed comments on Consequentialism Need Not Be Nearsighted - Less Wrong

53 Post author: orthonormal 02 September 2011 07:37AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (118)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: CG_Morton 03 September 2011 11:41:15AM 0 points [-]

But people still die.

I think a major part of how our instinctive morality works (and a reason humans, as a species, have been so successful) is that we don't go for cheap solutions. The most moral thing is to save everyone. The solution here is a stopgap that just diminishes the urgency of technology to grow organ replacements, and even if short-term consequentially it leaves more people alive, it in fact worsens out long-term life expectancy by not addressing the problem (which is that people's organs get damaged or wear out).

If a train is heading for 5 people, and you can press a switch to make it hit 1 person, the best moral decision is "I will find a way to save them all!" Even if you don't find that solution, at least you were looking!

Comment author: lessdazed 03 September 2011 11:48:58AM *  2 points [-]

The most moral thing is to save everyone.

Why stop there? Why not say that the moral thing is to save even more people than are present, or will ever be born, etc.?