Questions of Ethics

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by tonaderspeisung

with kant thinking wouldn't one have to find that 5 is always a better outcome than one

i personally give life the number value of zero - not as having no value but a number representation for both infinite potential and an absolute value of it's end

in this case 5x0=0 and 1x0=0
so i still can't conclude that actively participating is of greater good than non

I'm not sure that one would have to conclude that Kantian ethics would require one to conclude that five is always the right outcome. It depends upon what rule is being applied.

If the rule being applied is "in any situation where one has a choice between saving one person and saving multiple people always save multiple people" I do not think the Kantian imperative requires us to conclude that or act in that manner. Without any real effort we can all come up with reasons why that rule should not be applied.

If, on the other hand, the rule being applied is "in any situation where one has a choice between saving one person and saving multiple people and where this can be achieved without treating people as instruments instead of ends and where all other things are equal then the likely correct action is to save the most people" then I think that we might want to apply the Kantian maxim that we should not act on any principle that we would not be comfortable with if it were to become a universal law.

Even if I am the person who will die, I am actually rather comfortable with the idea that all other things being equal, we try to do what will be of greatest benefit to the largest number of people.

Keep in mind that things are not always equal. If I can save my son or I can save you and your child, I'm saving my son. That might seem to contradict but my level of concern for your well-being is necessarily dwarfed by my level of concern for my son's well-being. So the life of my son, compared to the life of the other 6 billion of y'all, is more important to me. All things are not equal in that situation. Even if we might wish that I would feel otherwise about my son, there are millions of years of primate evolution disagreeing with what we might wish.

If I understand your calculus, though, it militates for never doing anything to save people except, perhaps, your own kin. If the argument you are making is that if you save the five people they will still die eventually and if you save the one he will die eventually, then doesn't that just invite a nihilistic stance of not doing anything? Or am I missing something?

Cheers
Aj