tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post5780125066219990570..comments2023-07-18T08:00:22.009-05:00Comments on Steinblog: More on the Survival LotteryUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-41237394047823826012013-04-23T09:30:17.906-05:002013-04-23T09:30:17.906-05:00Do you think that it depends on whether the lotter...Do you think that it depends on whether the lottery is voluntary or mandated? We do alloow states to set up a lottery where most people lose quite a bit of money - but the rationale is that profits benefit the community at large. The money goes to support education, etc. <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-43676216621809044332013-04-21T16:05:30.722-05:002013-04-21T16:05:30.722-05:00I think that if you look at the bigger picture - r...I think that if you look at the bigger picture - rather than just comparing person X to person Y - then the survival lottery seems more practical. Say, for example, that for every one person picked in the survival lottery that ten people will receive organs for them and would otherwise die. That means for every one person sacrificed there are ten people saved. So say that 100 people are picked in the lottery each year, that means 1,000 people will be saved in a year. I think it's better to look at it this way rather than comparing just one person to another in terms of "value" or happiness-bearing. Plus who's to say who is actually more valuable than another person? Also, think about this fact. Say that it is ten times more likely that on any given day you will get into a car accident than be picked in a survival lottery. Given that it is ten times more likely that you will need an organ rather than be sacrificed (and more likely that one of your parents will need an organ than that they are drawn in the lottery), it seems like everyone would be better off being in the lottery. With statistics in the picture (if they are at all accurate, which I think they roughly are considering that whoever is drawn in the survival lottery will be able to donate many organs like skin, eyes, liver, heart, lungs, kidneys, bone etc) then it is hard to say that you would rather not be included in the lottery. How do those of you who wouldn't want to be included in the lottery feel about this?<br />Claire S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-52129360603964304172013-04-19T09:38:58.518-05:002013-04-19T09:38:58.518-05:00In general, when some counterexample to utilitaria...In general, when some counterexample to utilitarianism is raised that has to do with violating a principle of justice (e.g., slavery) or autonomy (respect for self-determination) that would lead to better consequences on a prticular occasion, proponents of utilitarianism will argue that there are extremely negative far-reaching consequences to consider. For example, these sorts of actions set a precedent for the promulgation of such behavior in the future. These consequences also need to be taken into account in the calculation. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-46730176597448632692013-04-18T20:28:49.915-05:002013-04-18T20:28:49.915-05:00I also think that this thought experiment is "...I also think that this thought experiment is "too convoluted" to consider seriously.<br /><br />In class today, I was one of the few who raised our hands when polled on whether this system would be moral. I would like to clarify that I do not believe that the system could possibly be both moral and practical.<br /><br />The idea of this thought experiment is that utility is increased by the lottery. If this is the case, says the utilitarian, then the system is also moral. Anytime an issue is raised in objection to the system, it seems to appeal to our moral intuitions. Certainly it makes sense to ask whether one would really be increasing happiness if they instituted a random system by which Ned or Moe could be sacrificed.<br /><br />Instead of committing Simpsonocide, we should simply step back and realize that the idea of implementing a survival lottery would be to increase utility. If we were presented a Ned/Moe dilemma, let's pretend we have a morality machine which decides for us how we might best proceed. It really doesn't make sense to consider all of these objections, because they aren't in the true spirit of the idea of a survival lottery in the first place.<br /><br />Why, then, do these conundrums pop up left and right? Simply because a survival lottery is impractical; no efforts of society could bring about a lottery system which perfectly operates to maximize utility. It could be the case that Kenny, the recipient of an organ, gets hit by a bus the next day and dies. Surely we can't determine this outcome...and if we can't factor it into utility calculations, we cannot know how to best run a lottery. If we can't put a lottery into operation to begin with, then it seems like we're simply stating its impracticality when we come across a Ned/Moe conundrum. When the lottery is impractical, we aren't really in a position to asses its morality. This would be akin to determining the color of the penguin that was in class on Tuesday.P. Stephensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3133078502277941061.post-25751364097027639272013-04-18T16:12:19.928-05:002013-04-18T16:12:19.928-05:00I think you're right that assuming each life h...I think you're right that assuming each life has the same amount of utility is a problem for the Survival Lottery. However, I don't think this all of the sudden undermines the thought experiment (I think it a weak thought experiment myself, but not for these reasons). <br /><br />If Ned and Ned's equally happy twin brother Ted both fall ill and need two (separate) organs, then according to your system it will be fine to take Moe's life in order to save Ned and Ted. That is, kill Moe to take his organs. There's nothing highly convoluted going on here, and it takes into account the difference between the utility different lives have. As you said, either bite the bullet or explain why the thought experiment doesn't work. Go ahead and bite that bullet and say it's ok to kill Moe if you like, but you're going to need to do a bit more work to simply dismiss the entire thought experiment.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03959843807249507293noreply@blogger.com