Bob and the Bugatti - Peter Singer

[johnofgwent]

Well putting serious debate aside, maybe the perfect answer is:

- Save the child.

- Sue the child's parents for the value of the car (plus severe damages from the distress of having to watch my car get crushed).

- Use the money to save more lives...



 :crzy

 In America, that will work a treat



 :hattip  :hattip

[Nalaar]

I see the point, but I also don't feel this particular example feels somehow good enough.  I'm thinking there must be a better one to use, although in all honesty I can't think of it right now.  There are too many unanswered points in this example, like, why would someone who thinks it's ok to drive around in an uninsured vehicle possibly be prepared to sell it to save lives etc etc.



So I get the underlying philosophical debate it's trying to trigger but I dislike the specific puzzle given.

It's not a matter of 'why would they do x' more a matter of 'I think they should do x'.

[Javert]

While I understand the sentiment here, I don't think it holds true. I think the power of the example in the OP is to present us with our own hypocrisy.



Everyday we make choices about what we would rather do than save lives etc, I think it is important we recognise and accept that.



Also my thanks for the clarity on the insurance issue.

I see the point, but I also don't feel this particular example feels somehow good enough.  I'm thinking there must be a better one to use, although in all honesty I can't think of it right now.  There are too many unanswered points in this example, like, why would someone who thinks it's ok to drive around in an uninsured vehicle possibly be prepared to sell it to save lives etc etc.



So I get the underlying philosophical debate it's trying to trigger but I dislike the specific puzzle given.

[Javert]

On a point of detail, if we are talking losing the value of the car, both the US and the UK have laws requiring to.to be insured for harm done to.others but no-one forces you to insure it for its replacement value if written off....

Well putting serious debate aside, maybe the perfect answer is:

- Save the child.

- Sue the child's parents for the value of the car (plus severe damages from the distress of having to watch my car get crushed).

- Use the money to save more lives...



 :crzy

[Nalaar]

A question then.



How many people have you dragged out of a sticky situation.

I do not know. But not enough.

Do you think you've done enough?

To your allegation that every day we make decisions to do something other than save lives, if you mean every day I ignore the begging tv adverts often fronted by wealthy tv personalities or celebrities asking me to.save a poor African child or overworked donkey  ...



Yes. I ignore them  

That's certainly one approach to take.

[T00ts]

A question then.



How many people have you dragged out of a sticky situation.



To your allegation that every day we make decisions to do something other than save lives, if you mean every day I ignore the begging tv adverts often fronted by wealthy tv personalities or celebrities asking me to.save a poor African child or overworked donkey  ...



Yes. I ignore them  



Because I know the children are almost certainly already dead, or a sex slave in a other country  and the adverts are there to boost the wallet of the organisations CEO and provide presidential.and army backhanded.



If someone were to.ask me to help crowdfund the incineration from space of the said president and his entire dynasty I would not hesitate.



Because the only way to really save those lives is to end the life of the scum who 'rule' the country and let that happen.



We do indeed need to face the hypocrisy of our society's less salubrious elements.



We are not those elements and again I say, your whole construct is bogus.

 :hattip

[johnofgwent]

While I understand the sentiment here, I don't think it holds true. I think the power of the example in the OP is to present us with our own hypocrisy.



Everyday we make choices about what we would rather do than save lives etc, I think it is important we recognise and accept that.



Also my thanks for the clarity on the insurance issue.

A question then.



How many people have you dragged out of a sticky situation.



To your allegation that every day we make decisions to do something other than save lives, if you mean every day I ignore the begging tv adverts often fronted by wealthy tv personalities or celebrities asking me to.save a poor African child or overworked donkey  ...



Yes. I ignore them  



Because I know the children are almost certainly already dead, or a sex slave in a other country  and the adverts are there to boost the wallet of the organisations CEO and provide presidential.and army backhanded.



If someone were to.ask me to help crowdfund the incineration from space of the said president and his entire dynasty I would not hesitate.



Because the only way to really save those lives is to end the life of the scum who 'rule' the country and let that happen.



We do indeed need to face the hypocrisy of our society's less salubrious elements.



We are not those elements and again I say, your whole construct is bogus.

[Nalaar]

I've had to make a choice between saving a life and saving property and i chose saving a life and I would again and again, every single time I was faced with it where I have no idea who is at peril, and most times when I do.

While I understand the sentiment here, I don't think it holds true. I think the power of the example in the OP is to present us with our own hypocrisy.



Everyday we make choices about what we would rather do than save lives etc, I think it is important we recognise and accept that.



Also my thanks for the clarity on the insurance issue.

[johnofgwent]

Do you think I have been unclear?







I believe the example question is framed from an American perspective, where insurance is optional.

On a point of detail, if we are talking losing the value of the car, both the US and the UK have laws requiring to.to be insured for harm done to.others but no-one forces you to insure it for its replacement value if written off....

[johnofgwent]

Do you think I have been unclear?







I believe the example question is framed from an American perspective, where insurance is optional.

I edited that post after I first submitted it.



I do not see how letting the girl die saves countless others as the scenario postulated is a bogus dichotomy.

[Javert]

I can't hide the fact that your 'ideas' annoy me. I believe in two influences in this world. One for good the other for evil. To put the life of an innocent child into some sort of sick contest, even imagined, with the monetary value of a car, makes me sick to my stomach. For me it is the embodiment of all the evil influences in this world. Before you or anyone tells me this is just an emotional reaction let me assure you that it is indeed a logical reaction to what is in effect a not so subtle pseudo-scientific attempt to devalue life. I notice that although you request our choices in the decision you carefully avoid your own and that gives me even less confidence in the reasons for this thread to start with. Why don't you divulge your own view before you commandeer everyone else's, and if you are still making up your mind there is a far better reading list.

I suspect the nature of it is to try to point out that in reality, these type of trade offs are already being made.



For example, even today, we spend huge amounts of money to save the life of one child in the NHS, when a lot more children's lives could be saved globally by spending that money on (for example) eliminating malaria from the world.  This atually happens today.



Even if you want to assume that only UK lives count (which a lot of people do in these discusions even though they wouldn't care to admit it), we spend a fortune to save one life, when arguably that same money, if spent on ensuring a healthy diet for every child in relative poverty in the UK, would add a lot more additional months/years of life than you can add to that one person with the money spent.



However I agree that the puzzle presented here, as presented, it seem to me to be immoral to let the child die, regardless of the intellectual debate that could be made.



The other concern is that when you start literally sacrificing lives that are right in front of you for the "greater good", you have in that moment left human compassion behind and therefore you could end up doing a lot worse things in the name of the greater good later on.

[Nalaar]

I must have missed something.

Do you think I have been unclear?

If Bob can't afford insurance he should not be allowed to drive in the first place.

I believe the example question is framed from an American perspective, where insurance is optional.

[Borchester]

I must have missed something.

Me too.



If Bob can't afford insurance he should not be allowed to drive in the first place.

[johnofgwent]

I think letting the train kill the child opens the path to many more children's lives being saved, as much as that may be against our instincts, I don't see how it's wrong.



I think the desire goal matters, and if the goal is to stop children dying, that would be better severed in Bobs case by saving the Bugatti.

I must have missed something.



I get that by keeping his Bugatti he remains wealthy



I get that the twisted logic of the original article says that because we feel.outrage at his choices we should use our wealth to save African babies and therefore this one childs death will have many more



But this is a totally bogus dichotomy, like many of your posts seem to be I might add.



For a start, "Bob" has already shown he does not give a F@@@ for human life, and therefore, his continuing enjoyment of his expensive motor car will not cause him to be making any donations to any charitable causes. As I pointed out earlier, I've had to make a choice between saving a life and saving property and i chose saving a life and I would again and again, every single time I was faced with it where I have no idea who is at peril, and most times when I do.



I cannot know how many tens, hundreds or millions may be doomed by my action in the here and now. I am not omnipotent  or omniscient. If I were, my hit list to receive a visit from my angel of death might be admired by some, but it is unlikely to.be universally acclaimed.



No, sorry, this entire postulate is a total fraud



I live with the decisions I make,  I live in the real world, and somehow, someone somewhere led me to hold the belief that human life where sustainable is worth preserving even where such preservation is at some risk to my own. Not some dry academic debate for some college professor but the real world.



There has only been one case where an arse hole I have rescued from certain death went on to.prove I was wasting my time and should have been left to drown.



There are some others who, I do admit, were I to know it was them at peril, I would not act to save because I think the world a better place with them dead.



Would you pull the switch if it were your bugatti and George Soros for example? I would not pull the switch if I had hiked to the location and had no material component at risk. Indeed I would cheer as the train reduced him to squishy pulp.



But this diverges somewhat from your bogus lab rat maze.

[DeppityDawg]

I think these are important questions which will have real world impacts, the simplicity presented in the Binary concept of the choices may be something you scoff at, but see beyond that.

I'd have to agree with Toots. I find a lot of this soul searching schtick a bit puzzling. I think you are a contrarian. You know, one of those complex people who makes a point of having views which are opposite and contentious at the least, and likely to cause others offence at worst. This can be a kind of "Avant guard" thing for some people, who see the orthodox world as a kind of outdated Lego village that needs to be rebuilt. Not for me I'm afraid. As for scoffing at you, no, I simply said that life is rarely as simple as presenting life as binary choices, however symbolic or virtuous their intended meaning might be.