You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Trevor_Blake comments on Open thread, August 4 - 10, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: polymathwannabe 04 August 2014 12:20PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (307)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (307)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 August 2014 02:02:38AM 6 points [-]

Quoted in full from here:

A 33-year-old doctor in Africa and a 60-year-old missionary have both contracted Ebola, and both will likely die. In a made-for-tv-movie scenario, there’s only enough serum for one person so the doctor insists it go to the old lady. People are using this to illustrate how awesome and selfless the doctor is, saying that Even Now he “puts the needs of others above his own needs.” I, on the other hand, think this is a rotten stinking act of hubris. As a DOCTOR, he is far more valuable to the African people, and as such HE should get the serum. Not only is his act NOT selfless, in fact many more people will die since he has essentially killed their doctor. - Ruth Waytz

Comment author: pragmatist 09 August 2014 06:27:56AM 7 points [-]

I see the broad point Waytz is making, but the ranty delivery is pretty silly. Why is the doctor's act not selfless? It certainly appears to be motivated by altruism (even if that altruism is misguided, from a utilitarian perspective). Having a non-utilitarian moral code is not the same thing as selfishness.

Second, the anger in that comment seems to have more to do with a distaste for deontological altruistic gestures than anything else. I really doubt Waytz would be as mad if the doctor had simply decided that he had had enough of working in the medical profession and decided to open a bistro instead.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit