Doing what is right in an out of control world


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Be assured, if you provide a rational argument, I will respond to it with rational respect.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I believe this has started to become circular: So Rationality is the standard by which universal truth may be known?

 

I believe you stated 'Not exclusively' before. Could you care to elaborate on what other standards you will apply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FunkyTown said:

Could you care to elaborate on what other standards you will apply?

Sure. Firstly, get rid of the idea that I know, or claim to know, 'universal truth'. Or that this is what the thread is/has become about. So far as I am concerned, it is about what is right, and moral, and ethical. And I take a somewhat utilitarian approach to that; that what is right, and moral, and ethical is (broadly speaking) about what is conducive to human wellbeing and welfare. About what is in our collective best interests, short, medium and long-term. So, naturally, I would tend to assess any alleged moral 'truth' from that perspective.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Sure. Firstly, get rid of the idea that I know, or claim to know, 'universal truth'. Or that this is what the thread is/has become about. So far as I am concerned, it is about what is right, and moral, and ethical. And I take a somewhat utilitarian approach to that; that what is right, and moral, and ethical is (broadly speaking) about what is conducive to human wellbeing and welfare. About what is in our collective best interests, short, medium and long-term. So, naturally, I would tend to assess any alleged moral 'truth' from that perspective.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Great! So what do you define as 'Collective best interest'? Is it what will allow the largest number of people to live the longest lives? Is it the greatest pleasure with the minimum amount of pain? Is it some third thing that I am not thinking of - And what wins out if there is a conflict between short-term, medium and long-term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

Great! So what do you define as 'Collective best interest'? 

So, I don't have the expertise or arrogance to think I can make that judgment for all people, for all time. But I think a medical term, the QALY, or quality adjusted life year, might have a more general relevance. In the UK we have to ration health-care in some non-arbitrary, unbiased way, since the state (read tax-payer) sponsored NHS does not get enough money to cure everybody of everything. The QALY seeks to assign weight both to quantity of life and quality of life, and thus allocate resources, and I think extending this principle might be a sensible way to proceed. If we optimised the number of QALYs, we might just be doing something good.

Best wishes, 2RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, I don't have the expertise or arrogance to think I can make that judgment for all people, for all time. But I think a medical term, the QALY, or quality adjusted life year, might have a more general relevance. In the UK we have to ration health-care in some non-arbitrary, unbiased way, since the state (read tax-payer) sponsored NHS does not get enough money to cure everybody of everything. The QALY seeks to assign weight both to quantity of life and quality of life, and thus allocate resources, and I think extending this principle might be a sensible way to proceed. If we optimised the number of QALYs, we might just be doing something good.

Best wishes, 2RM

Okay. I'm cautious with this because it really didn't answer my question. What standards are you going to use to judge quality of life?

 

You want to balance quantity of life and quality of life, so a few questions on that are:

 

1) What defines quality of life? Is it pleasure for the most amount of people with the minimum amount of pain? 

2) In terms of allocating resources, how would you define this? For instance: Should a surgeon remove your healthy organs(Which would kill you) if doing so would save 7 sick people and give them functioning, happy lives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FunkyTown said:

What standards are you going to use to judge quality of life? ...You want to balance quantity of life and quality of life, so a few questions on that are:

I didn't say that. I said that we should attempt to optimise the number of QALYs. So, for example, providing clean, fresh water to the absolutely poor in Africa, Asia and South America would reduce disease and parasitic infections, reduce the time spent by the young women and children collecting often filthy, contaminated water, and thereby increase both quality and quantity of life. Such a project would therefore score highly on the QALY criteria.

Quote

1) What defines quality of life? 

Hospitals in the UK have both codified rules and ethics committees to address this difficult judgment. Such committees are made up of, say, doctors, social workers, religious clerics, lay people, etc. There is no reason why similar such committees, with a similar such remit, should not advise on government policies.

Quote

2) In terms of allocating resources, how would you define this? For instance: Should a surgeon remove your healthy organs(Which would kill you) if doing so would save 7 sick people and give them functioning, happy lives?

I do not intend to 'allocate' resources. That is for governments to do, according to the settled democratic will of the people, and for the people to do, according to their own charitable priorities. Clearly if the government went about compulsorily removing organs from healthy people, to give to sick people, healthy people everywhere would rightly be upset and afeared, and so it is doubtful whether there would be any net increase in QALYs.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I do not intend to 'allocate' resources. That is for governments to do, according to the settled democratic will of the people, and for the people to do, according to their own charitable priorities. Clearly if the government went about compulsorily removing organs from healthy people, to give to sick people, healthy people everywhere would rightly be upset and afeared, and so it is doubtful whether there would be any net increase in QALYs.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Would it be better to be done secretly, without the public knowing? That would not reduce net happiness index levels at all and would greatly improve the lives of multiple people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Transparent politics with the feedback provided by transparently agreed, evidence based, closely monitored objectives must be the best way to run a nation state. That will satisfy most reasonable people that their government is governing on their behalf. As for the cynics and conspiracy theorists; well, if your secret proposal were to be adopted, they would certainly have something to be cynical and conspiracy theorist about.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, I don't have the expertise or arrogance to think I can make that judgment for all people, for all time. But I think a medical term, the QALY, or quality adjusted life year, might have a more general relevance. In the UK we have to ration health-care in some non-arbitrary, unbiased way, since the state (read tax-payer) sponsored NHS does not get enough money to cure everybody of everything. The QALY seeks to assign weight both to quantity of life and quality of life, and thus allocate resources, and I think extending this principle might be a sensible way to proceed. If we optimised the number of QALYs, we might just be doing something good.

Best wishes, 2RM

So in your view the state gets to decide who lives or dies based on what they view as quality of life, and the individuals desires and wishes should be ignored? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

So in your view the state gets to decide who lives or dies based on what they view as quality of life, and the individuals desires and wishes should be ignored? 

I don't know where you get that idea from. Certainly I never proposed it.

What I am saying is that nation states have scarce resources, and must prioritise from among many worthy and not-so-worthy policy options. So, if we have two projects, vying for the same funding, one criteria we can apply to decide between them is the impact on total QALYs.

And what goes for nation states goes for individuals. One of the problems of deciding how to dispose of one's charity is evaluating most 'bang for buck'. The QALY is one way we might assess this.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

No. Transparent politics with the feedback provided by transparently agreed, evidence based, closely monitored objectives must be the best way to run a nation state. That will satisfy most reasonable people that their government is governing on their behalf. As for the cynics and conspiracy theorists; well, if your secret proposal were to be adopted, they would certainly have something to be cynical and conspiracy theorist about.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Now that's interesting - I proposed something that would have fit your definition of providing the greatest good to the greatest amount of people, and the greatest quality of life and now you're stating that the public should have a right to know.

 

What if the transparently agreed, evidence based, closely monitored objectives would provide greater harm if they were known than if they were unknown?

 

For instance: There is an outbreak of Ebola Zaire in Vancouver. To save the world from a deadly, highly infectious disease, the government must utillize localized nuclear weapons on the airport in Vancouver. Thousands will die if it is done, but billions will die if it is not done. The government acts to protect the greatest number of people with the minimum amount of death. By utilizing transparency, they are going to frighten a lot of people - Are billions of people a single bad cough away from death? Should you tell children they were one decision away from a global pandemic that probably would have killed them and everyone they know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I don't know where you get that idea from. Certainly I never proposed it.

What I am saying is that nation states have scarce resources, and must prioritise from among many worthy and not-so-worthy policy options. So, if we have two projects, vying for the same funding, one criteria we can apply to decide between them is the impact on total QALYs.

So yes, you obviously do think the state should make choices for citizens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. I never even mentioned 'the greatest good of the greatest number'. For the government to attempt it is a somewhat quaint, victorian, paternalist idea. The QALY is, I think, a considerable improvement on the principle, with at least some claim to objectivity, but in the end we choose our own moralities, and how we justify them.

As for your nightmare scenario, I think a suitable collection of suitably qualified individuals would probably find an alternative preferable to nuking Vancouver. I see this scenario not just unlikely, but actually quite impossible.

Now, @FunkyTownI have laid out my thinking on what is right and moral and ethical. It's your turn to propose your alternative.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm. I never even mentioned 'the greatest good of the greatest number'. For the government to attempt it is a somewhat quaint, victorian, paternalist idea. The QALY is, I think, a considerable improvement on the principle, with at least some claim to objectivity, but in the end we choose our own moralities, and how we justify them.

As for your nightmare scenario, I think a suitable collection of suitably qualified individuals would probably find an alternative preferable to nuking Vancouver. I see this scenario not just unlikely, but actually quite impossible.

Now, @FunkyTownI have laid out my thinking on what is right and moral and ethical. It's your turn to propose your alternative.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Right - Am I allowed to use your own justifications for the ethics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Governments have the responsibility, right, and duty to govern. It is what we pay them to do.

Best wishes, 2RM.

So I was right. You do think that "governments" should make choices for individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:
Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

Whatever you want.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. I never even mentioned 'the greatest good of the greatest number'. For the government to attempt it is a somewhat quaint, victorian, paternalist idea. The QALY is, I think, a considerable improvement on the principle, with at least some claim to objectivity, but in the end we choose our own moralities, and how we justify them.

As for your nightmare scenario, I think a suitable collection of suitably qualified individuals would probably find an alternative preferable to nuking Vancouver. I see this scenario not just unlikely, but actually quite impossible.

Now, @FunkyTownI have laid out my thinking on what is right and moral and ethical. It's your turn to propose your alternative.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Great. So you believe that a collection of 'suitably qualified individuals will probably find an alternative' where it comes to nightmare scenarios, right? And you believe that we choose our own moralities and how we justify them?

 

Does that mean that morality is simply subjective, and that no moral system is better or worse than any other?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

So I was right. You do think that "governments" should make choices for individuals.

OK. Do you think that if the government had not laid down in law that we are to drive on the left (in the UK), and simply left it to individual whim as to whether to drive on left or right, there would be more, or fewer, road casualties? The point is, it is sometimes (perhaps even, often) better for the government to pass laws than to leave things to chance and arbitrary preference.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

OK. Do you think that if the government had not laid down in law that we are to drive on the left (in the UK), and simply left it to individual whim as to whether to drive on left or right, there would be more, or fewer, road casualties? The point is, it is sometimes (perhaps even, often) better for the government to make laws than to leave things to chance and arbitrary preference.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

You are comparing the government deciding what side of the road people drive on to.....making medical choices for them? 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

Does that mean that morality is simply subjective, and that no moral system is better or worse than any other?

Not at all. I have already stated in this thread that I believe natural law to be God's will, which I take to be objective. I just asked how we can claim to know it, if we do not know how we know we know it.

And I have provided a semi-objective assessment criteria as an alternative to subjective ethics, in the QALY.

So, I have done some considerable work. Now, it really is your turn, @FunkyTown.


Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Not at all. I have already stated in this thread that I believe natural law to be God's will, which I take to be objective. I just asked how we can claim to know it, if we do not know how we know we know it.

And I have provided a semi-objective assessment criteria as an alternative to subjective ethics, in the QALY.

So, I have done some considerable work. Now, it really is your turn, @FunkyTown.


Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Perfect. So you agree that there is objective morality and we should strive to find that objective morality, but question whether or not we ever can.

 

And for your own morality, you believe that we should treat morality as a consensus - Not because it is infallible, but because the fallibility of an individual should be reigned in by the majority, who will hopefully make better decisions.

 

I'm not going to insult you by suggesting you support things like the tens of thousands guillotined during the French Revolution. And I'm certain you understand that there is group madness that can take hold(I dont want to strawman you, here).

 

Is it safe to say that you cautiously believe the madness of the democratic crowd is less dangerous than the madness of the tyrant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

Is it safe to say that you cautiously believe the madness of the democratic crowd is less dangerous than the madness of the tyrant?

I think that friendly, civilised, educated, informed, democratic debate, in which we all compensate for each other's errors and faults and failings and ignorances, is certainly 'less dangerous' than both.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

I think that friendly, civilised, educated, informed, democratic debate, in which we all compensate for each other's errors and faults and failings and ignorances, is certainly 'less dangerous' than both.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

Hahah. Too true. But you recognize that friendly, civilized, educated, informed, democratic debate are subjective, correct? And that you turn to the democratic whole knowing the dangers that are there because you understand implicitly the dangers of the tyrant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share