Questions of Ethics

[tonaderspeisung]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

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

i don't think so - for me it is a starting point of reference giving an intangible property (life) a value for the scenario equation.

i believe the equation allows for other factors to be added or subtracted e.g. family, military/police training, immobilizing fear

but we were only given the multiplying factors 5 and 1 so if i was asked to judge either outcome i would have to find both equally ethical

i can't find 5>1 to be the obvious answer
for me that leads down the road to 6 billion>5 and the unpleasant argument that five fewer people could be a greater advantage for the many