rwallace comments on Open Thread, February 15-29, 2012 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 15 February 2012 06:00AM

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

Comments (194)

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

Comment author: rwallace 17 February 2012 02:31:02AM 8 points [-]

Example: Most people would save a young child instead of an old person if forced to choose, and it is not not just because the baby has more years left, part of the reason is because it seems unfair for the young child to die sooner than the old person.

As far as I'm concerned it is just because the baby has more years left. If I had to choose between a healthy old person with several expected years of happy and productive life left, versus a child who was terminally ill and going to die in a year regardless, I'd save the old person. It is unfair that an innocent person should ever have to die, and unfairness is not diminished merely by afflicting everyone equally.

Comment author: Thrasymachus 17 February 2012 03:39:30PM 0 points [-]

Suppose old person and child (perhaps better: young adult) would both gain 2 years, so we equalize payoff. What then? Why not be prioritarian at the margin of aggregate indifference?

Comment author: [deleted] 25 February 2012 11:10:46AM 0 points [-]

Well, young adults typically enjoy life more*, so...


* I've heard old people saying they wish they could become young again, but I haven't heard any young people saying they can't wait to become old.