[Poll] Could you abandon a dying person?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by lychee, Nov 16, 2019.

Tags:
?

Would you save the lives of dying people in the slums?

  1. Yes - If I can save lives, I will do it 24/7 for the rest of my life

    2 vote(s)
    2.3%
  2. Yes - I would treat it like a rigorous full-time job with vacations

    3 vote(s)
    3.4%
  3. Yes - I would treat it like a regular full-time job

    4 vote(s)
    4.5%
  4. Yes - I would treat it like a part-time job

    7 vote(s)
    8.0%
  5. Yes - I would treat it like a serious hobby

    1 vote(s)
    1.1%
  6. Yes - I would treat it like a casual hobby

    5 vote(s)
    5.7%
  7. Yes - I would do it very inconsistently

    6 vote(s)
    6.8%
  8. Yes - I would do it a few times

    1 vote(s)
    1.1%
  9. Yes - I would do it once or twice

    3 vote(s)
    3.4%
  10. No - Because I don’t care if other people die

    4 vote(s)
    4.5%
  11. No - Because I don’t care about poor people

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  12. No - Because I don’t get any rewards/benefits

    4 vote(s)
    4.5%
  13. No - Because I want to enjoy my life

    2 vote(s)
    2.3%
  14. No - Because this is pointless

    18 vote(s)
    20.5%
  15. No - Because this is a hassle

    6 vote(s)
    6.8%
  16. No - Because the other doctor is annoying

    2 vote(s)
    2.3%
  17. No - Because the sick people deserve it

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  18. No - Because this world is clearly overpopulated

    7 vote(s)
    8.0%
  19. No - Other reason

    4 vote(s)
    4.5%
  20. I’m unsure

    6 vote(s)
    6.8%
  21. I do not wish to answer

    3 vote(s)
    3.4%
  1. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    5,407
    Reading List:
    Link
    I think it is somewhat inherently problematic to precondition any intervention with an assessment on a person's "goodness".

    This kind of view basically implies that only good people deserve to live, and bad people deserve to die.

    However, if you have any morally gray view on humanity (which I personally do) -- I don't believe in inherently good or bad people. Bad people can become good and good people can be bad. Hitler might be Hitler but he maybe he could have been a loving father to his kids, even though he might be a horrible racist/genocidist. Humans are humans, really, and all humans live life with happy and sad and good and bad things.

    Yes, I suppose that should be fine. Have fun zooming around I guess.

    I still think this is an extraordinary circumstance that is practically negligible.

    When you have a crazy power like described in the OP, you could easily turn invisible (like @ongoingwhy mentioned) or you could erase people's memories. You are literally limitless in capabilities.

    Of course, there is always a risk that something will turn out bad -- but is this like a 0.1% risk? 0.01% risk? There is a risk that we take every day getting in a car, and at a certain point that risk becomes practically negligible.

    While I was in New York City doing my undergraduate studies, a crazy person showed up in the emergency room of my local hospital with an axe and hacked a couple doctors/nurses to death.

    Does this mean that since this is possible and plausible, you should never go to the emergency room again?

    No... to me, it is an extremely unlikely event, and the plausibility of something doesn't mean that it should be something that drives your fear of an outcome -- particularly if it is a particularly improbable outcome.

    I had originally picked a classic feature of morality that was just "killing".

    Several moral philosophies hold that any form of killing is wrong.

    Consequently, if you subscribe to this believe, the corollary is that it doesn't matter how good or bad the individual is. You shouldn't kill them. This is one of the inherent moral arguments against the death penalty.

    If you disagree with this view, then we have a moral foundational value that won't hold up with this scenario.

    Most countries have a Good Samaritan law that protect the volunteer in this situation, so they can't be sued.

    Furthermore, most medical practitioner's insurance will definitely cover this. The airplane situation is something that happens more often than you might think.

    Of course it's not easy, and it's certainly not the case that whatever you do will "fix" it.

    However, inaction can be a scary thing that weighs on your head too.

    If you have a lot of people or lives counting on you, that burden is not something that is easy to convey to other people.

    Even in the airplane scenario, CPR only has a success rate of like 10%. However, most doctors will feel like they are morally obligated to try, even if it will fail 90% of the time.

    10% is still better than 0%.

    I wasn't able to wrap this into this scenario, but a critical assumption of the power hypothetical is that you're the only person capable of doing it.

    The airplane scenario is totally different if there are 10 other doctors on board. You can just let somebody else save the dying person.

    However if you are the only doctor on board, you are the only person capable of resolving the situation, therefore by logic it is exclusively your responsibility if things go south.
     
    bf and kkgoh like this.
  2. AryaX

    AryaX Less-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2017
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    266
    Reading List:
    Link
    I think... I would still go with the sterility plague that renders those who currently can't really provide for children, infertile... Even if I would later find out that the world can support infinite population, I would likely leave the plague to do its thing...
     
  3. Arcturus

    Arcturus Cat, Hidden Sith Lord

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    9,273
    Likes Received:
    17,814
    Reading List:
    Link
    You say it would require a ton of research. But we have the ability to do whatever want within our sphere of influence, including things like halting time, being immortal, and making time move extremely quickly within out sphere. Also you would be able to do experiments that typically would require more equipment and expenditure. So it should relatively simple to perform the analysis and research needed with minimal cost.

    But yeah I would consider it a moral imperative to create such a cure, especially when it would be quite easy for me.
     
    bf and lychee like this.
  4. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    5,407
    Reading List:
    Link
    @kkgoh To follow up on this, the classic example I can think of is kidney/liver transplants.

    1. There aren't enough organs to go around

    2. A lot of people have organ failure because of lifestyle choices (alcoholism/drugs)

    3. Should you exclude alcoholics from getting organ transplants in favor of "better" people?

    However, if you dig into the numbers, maybe it turns out that there is some systemic inequalities here too.

    Like maybe one racial group is disproportionately making up a large portion of the list.

    And from what we know about various racial studies, multiple socioeconomic factors can contribute to poor health outcomes. I forgot the name of that crazy depressing hentai manga, but maybe a crazy boyfriend got a girl into taking drugs with sex, or that you had abusive parents, or all sorts of different factors.

    It is very difficult to isolate the final outcome into an issue of "moral failure" solely on the individual in question.

    Realistically, their starting point was likely different, and many other shitty people were involved in their lives that influenced this outcome. It would be extremely misguided to say that it's a poor minority-race prostitute with STD's exclusive 100% individual fault for being stuck in their horrible situation with liver failure.

    You have no idea what else they may have gone through in their life.
     
    ongoingwhy, bf and kkgoh like this.
  5. Arcturus

    Arcturus Cat, Hidden Sith Lord

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    9,273
    Likes Received:
    17,814
    Reading List:
    Link
    As and addendum to this, I do not consider it the moral responsibility of someone with such god-like powers to go around the world fixing everything, even if they hypothetically could. Nor would I consider it necessary for them to actively search for problems to fix. But problems that they do come across and understand are problems and that they can solve in a straightforward manner would be their responsibility.

    You might want to read the story Re:Write. I found it an interesting take on the problems of having god-like powers.
     
    kkgoh and lychee like this.
  6. kkgoh

    kkgoh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2017
    Messages:
    908
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    Reading List:
    Link

    Realizing the difficulty of responding to multi-quotes ... esp when they also come from me. :confused:

    (1) "Good" people live, "bad" people die.
    Agreed that's not for us to figure out, and humans have to rely on the next best thing they can come up with ... an imperfect legal system with peer review (juries).
    I'm only human. I don't have omniscience, nor can I imagine what an irrefutable system of karmic measurement would look like. I don't even believe in karma. I can only hypothesize that IF such a power/system existed, then it would be the perfect judge.
    Hitler could come with a whole bunch of baggage -- a loving family, dependents, etc. There is no right/wrong answer where you (or I) can factor those in. Bias will always come in. I'm throwing the ball to the irrefutable system of measurement/omniscience.

    (2) I still think this (revealing your powers can have unintended consequences) is an extraordinary circumstance that is practically negligible.
    Yea I was just running off your original scenario of capping your powers to 1m radius. Was assuming you don't have the ability to easily affect people's minds enmasse, etc. And I can't be bothered to think of a feasible way that you can game on your 1m radius and easily conceal your identity, protect your loved ones, etc.

    Simple example. One master manipulator (a certain individual named "D J Tr***p") convinces the world that you are holding out on your powers with conspiracy theories. That you aren't doing enough to save the world (even if you were), that you're an evil alien bent on taking over the world, etc etc. There's now significant public opinion against you -- even if it's just 10-20% of world population -- and you have no easy way to reverse the situation with your powers (at least I can't think of one with your 1m limit). Your loved ones are pressured by their social circles (not physically since you can protect them), and they start questioning you as well. Or they ask you for favors. Or .... the list goes on.
    Then wouldn't you be totally screwed?

    Or conversely. Is being popular/famous for your powers going to help you in anyway? If both paths (being known vs unknown) don't affect the efficacy of your powers, why do you have to make yourself known and invite possible trouble, no matter how negligible?
    Think we're going around the same point, just suggesting that it doesn't hurt to be prudent (y)

    (3) Any form of killing is wrong

    Nah I don't subscribe to that belief. I'm also NOT against the death penalty.
    I can respect that a lot of people have problems with it, but that's usually because they have beef with an imperfect legal system that sends innocent ppl to jail. IF you had a perfect system where innocent ppl aren't put to death/sent to jail, then the only ppl left complaining are those who believe all forms of killing are wrong.
    Don't wanna get too deep into this. I'm throwing the ball to the irrefutable system of measurement/omniscience.
     
    ongoingwhy, lohwengk and lychee like this.
  7. kkgoh

    kkgoh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2017
    Messages:
    908
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    Reading List:
    Link
    Yea, that's why I keep saying that I'M NOT THE ONE JUDGING!!!
    I'm throwing the ball to the irrefutable system of measurement/omniscience.
     
  8. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    5,407
    Reading List:
    Link
    I mean even then, for me I have a fundamental problem with a binary assessment of people.

    I've been watching "The Good Place" recently, and I legitimately don't think you can separate people into "good" people and "bad" people.

    Even if you have total omniscience (hypothetically), what moral system will you ascribe to? Will you assign "points" for people's "good" and "bad" acts? But even something like this is inherently flawed in a way.

    All of these things require a reference point (somebody who judges), but the identity of the judge is the most critical aspect of the verdict. One person might judge a person who commits bestiality with an animal = verdict is Good Person! A different person might judge a person who commits bestiality with an animal = verdict is Bad Person!

    But all of these things are incredibly superficial, and only means something true to the individual serving as a judge.

    In reality, all you can say that the act happened, and I struggle with the act of judging in itself.

    Yesterday, I ate chicken for dinner. I wore cheap clothes that was probably manufactured in a sweatshop in a third world country running on near-slave labor.

    Is this good or bad? Or maybe it isn't really something that isn't so easy to judge in the first place?
     
    bf likes this.
  9. kkgoh

    kkgoh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2017
    Messages:
    908
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    Reading List:
    Link
    Ugh ... @lychee that's why I'm calling it the irrefutable system of measurement/omniscience.

    Through some-miracle-i-don't-know-how, we ALL just accept the judgement of that system/omniscience like Santa.
    That jolly red fat pervert doesn't only peek into your everyday life and monitor what you're up to. He has to perverse power to judge whether your actions were naughty/nice, and to either compel or convince you to accept it.

    On a side note, yes, totally agreed there should be a distinction on "judge/jury/executioner".
    Having the powers your scenario described only qualify you to be the executioner. Not the judge/jury.
     
  10. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    5,407
    Reading List:
    Link
    But I mean, what if I reject that system? (meaning I refute the irrefutable)

    Like if I presented the argument that this system is inherently injust, and I refuse to observe/view it as "just" system -- kind of like peaceful protest.

    Even if such a system truly existed, it doesn't meant that the inhabitants of the world have to accept the third party that judges them. You could have any kind arbitrary judgement system, in theory. Suppose God is the God of Fruit and Vegetables, and they only thing they care about is the number of lychees you ate in your lifetime.

    If you ate < 10 lychees, you go to heaven.

    If you ate >= 10 lychees, you go to hell.

    It is both a omniscient system, irrefutable, and measurable.

    However it is completely arbitrary.
     
    bf and kkgoh like this.
  11. Arcturus

    Arcturus Cat, Hidden Sith Lord

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    9,273
    Likes Received:
    17,814
    Reading List:
    Link
    Oh yeah, btw in regards to the whole 1 meter limitation, you can always use the worm workaround: Create an infinite number of portals to locations further than one meter, thus allowing you to have greater physical distance for you power.
     
  12. kkgoh

    kkgoh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2017
    Messages:
    908
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    Reading List:
    Link

    Don't have a good answer for that. I'm just suggesting that there is some enduring system/power that can compel or convince you to accept its judgement.

    What's right for you/us today may not be so in the future. Or may not be accepted by a minority of the population.

    I think what we inherently accept as "just", "moral", "good/bad" today are affected by societal pressure (the majority), traditions, culture, religion, espoused values at the time, etc. What we call "universal human rights/principles" are only registered for that moment of human history.
    Centuries ago, life was cheap and people turned a blind eye to many "bad" things. We tacitly accepted it. That might just be the nature of human society. There are still some women out there who are conditioned to sexual harassment and speak out against the MeToo movement.

    If, for the next 100 years (spanning 2-3 human generations), an increasing proportion of human population turned loli/pedo, and we were slowly conditioned to accept that loli/pedophilia is ok, then I guarantee that 100 years later, loli/pedophilia will be a socially accepted norm.

    100 years later, it may become law that "10 lychees bad, 9 lychees good".
    Or, because you're an omnipotent god that can live for >100 years and constantly enforce your brand of "justice", then everyone learns to accept it, and your views/perspectives are lost in history. When the dissenters are old/dead, it doesn't matter. :whistle:
    So many weird cultures and traditions have been baked into our society for lesser reasons.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019
    bf and lychee like this.
  13. lohwengk

    lohwengk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2017
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    180
    Reading List:
    Link
    His problems are his own responsibility, just like my problems are my own responsibility. If I want someone else to solve my problems for me, I have to compensate them. So why should different rules apply to him?
     
  14. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    5,407
    Reading List:
    Link
    :blob_plusone::blob_plusone::blob_plusone::blob_plusone::blob_plusone:

    As a tangential note, if you you believe that free will does not exist, it's very challenging to argue in good/bad judgement of people.

    If a person doesn't have the free will to make their own decisions or decide their own fate, it's very unreasonable to "judge" them as going to heaven or hell.

    For instance, consider a robot. If a robot is preprogrammed to kill a human (and the robot has no free will; just the illusion of free will) -- is it the robot's fault or is the the person who programmed the robot? What if there was no programmer and the robot spontaneously came into existence from the natural environment? How is this any different from a rock falling down from the sky and killing a squirrel? Is it the rock's fault for killing the squirrel? But the rock is part of nature.........

    All of this is a huge philosophical mess.
     
    kkgoh likes this.
  15. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    5,407
    Reading List:
    Link
    Well, this is a perfect example of the modified trolley problem.

    [​IMG]

    You have an out-of-control train heading to a fork in the road. You are standing at the switch that controls the lever.

    On Track A (Default Path): There is a baby playing on the track.

    On Track B (Alternate Path): The path is completely clear.

    If you do nothing, the train will run over the baby, killing the baby.

    If you push the lever, the train will go on the other track, saving the baby.

    The baby will not compensate you regardless if you save it or not. It is not your responsibility to save the baby (you never signed any document stating that is the case). It is effortless for you to push the lever and there is virtually no cost to you doing so.

    Are you morally obligated to push the lever to save the baby?

    Or, alternative, if you refuse to push the lever (for whatever reason), are you a bad person?

    The very fact that you have the ability to push the lever makes this scenario totally different from if you were a helpless observer with no power to intervene in any way.
     
    kkgoh likes this.
  16. bf

    bf Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    133
    Reading List:
    Link
    This is actually really close to reality. Imagine a Churchill getting liver cancer from all his rampant alcoholism, or that he got tried for his WWI lapses, before the children-loving, orphanage-building, family-values Hitler rose to power.
    It is typically the case, as far the my reading list goes (buahaha, it is empty here) that the omnipotent saviour would simply assert dominance: My saving you is on my whim, not yours. If you wish to attack my charitable work, do not expect for it to be applicable to you. That typically solves the problem. And in reality, the human decency code is so strong, that people don't even begin to touch this. Like, we even protect the "charitable" organisations/people who are doing a tonne of harm. e.g. look at how Hitchens' expose of Mother Theresa is just ignored, when that is so bad.
    No. Guilty people does not mean that they cannot be rehabilitated. When you really restrict the selection to the incorrigible, that is still not worthwhile to kill. It is literally simpler and better to just hold them in a nice prison on a life sentence. The cost of their incarceration on society is literally negligible. There was another lychee poll on this, IIRC.
    *psst* in scholarly circles these days, it is fashionable to talk about how humans don't have free will, only free wont.

    But the underlying physics (I know serious profs who seriously believe in superdeterminism) really does not matter. If superdeterminism is true, then it is also not possible for me to cease acting as if free will exists. If we don't have free will, then there is nothing that we can do to prevent society from giving out punishment as if free will exists. What we only need to realise, is that empirically, systems of governance assuming that free will exists lead to empirical outcomes that are better off for society, even if those empirical outcomes are literally put there by satan. We have no alternative.
     
    lychee likes this.
  17. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    5,407
    Reading List:
    Link
    :aww::aww::aww::aww::aww:
     
    bf likes this.
  18. kkgoh

    kkgoh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2017
    Messages:
    908
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    Reading List:
    Link

    "Free will" exists, just maybe not in the full form or extent that we're used to thinking about.
    As you suggested, research as shown that some of our decisions are definitely preconditioned/programmed (your robot example). And that conditioning could be a result of the environment (nurture) or genes (nature).
    https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/heal...free-will-what-neuroscience-can-tell-us-about
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...that-shows-choice-could-just-be-a7008181.html

    But I don't think "free will" has that much bearing on our current system of laws, which is just a bunch of socially accepted norms.

    I'm reminded of the parable "The Scorpion and the Frog". They were good buddies (depending on who you were asking), wanted to cross the river and the frog offered the scorpion a ride but was worried he would be stung. The scorpion promised that he wouldn't, else he would drown too, and the frog agreed. Just before they finished crossing, the scorpion stung the frog dooming them both. The scorpion claimed to the surprised frog that "it's in his nature, he couldn't help it".

    Our current system of laws says that the scorpion will definitely be punished for his actions.
    It doesn't matter if the scorpion had free will. He did the crime, he does the time. So the only difference is what level of punishment he receives (manslaughter vs homicide).
    I do not believe there are any allowances for a criminal to go completely scot-free if it was accurately determined that he committed the illegal action. Even if it's just a slap on the wrist, that still counts as a punishment. So as @bf was saying, he can definitely be judged.
     
  19. lychee

    lychee [- slightly morbid fruit -] ❀[ 恋爱? ]❀

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,156
    Likes Received:
    5,407
    Reading List:
    Link
    There's the famous mental illness plea -- if you can get a psychologist or medical professional to proclaim that you are insane (or sleepwalking), I think it's possible to get admitted to the mental illness institution instead of the charges.

    I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I'm pretty sure intent and free will is a factor to most laws.

    If you were held at gunpoint to shoot another person, I'm pretty sure you would get acquitted... I think.

    That said, a lot of this also reflects onto your beliefs of what a justice system is for:
    • Is justice to "take revenge" on behalf of the victim?`
    • Is justice to "rehabilitate" to prevent an offender from offending again?
    • Is justice to "warn" other potential offenders from committing the same crime?
     
  20. kkgoh

    kkgoh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2017
    Messages:
    908
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    Reading List:
    Link
    Rehab works in some cases, not all.
    The average annual cost of incarceration per prisoner is US$35+k, or about US$100/day. That's NOT cheap.

    It's expensive to execute someone in the US (going to millions of dollars) because civil rights groups and the legal system deliberately made it so through expensive litigation, lengthy hearing dates, the requirement for painless (no "cruel or unusual") execution, etc.

    Once you remove all the false expenses, executing someone is very cheap. A bullet costs $0.50. A rope is reusable. So it then only comes down to whether you think "any form of killing is wrong".

    Not trying to be a d**k here, just pointing out some common fallacies about capital punishment and incarceration.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2019