10 Dec 07
1 edit
Are the lives of poor people as important as those of rich people?
Suppose there is a rich person who is capable in every way of enjoying his or her life to the maximum, aided by their tremendous wealth. And a person living in grinding poverty, always hungry, sick and cold, and who barely enjoys living at all. It seems that the rich person has far more to lose by dying than the poor person, especially since his life expectancy is likely to be higher - he stands to lose more, both in terms of quality and quantity of life. So, if we get to play God and decide which of the two is to live and which to die, there is a good (utilitarian) reason to let the rich guy live.
Discuss.
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyPeronally, both lives are important regardless off wealth etc. Every human life is important
Are the lives of poor people as important as those of rich people?
Suppose there is a rich person who is capable in every way of enjoying his or her life to the maximum, aided by their tremendous wealth. And a person living in grinding poverty, always hungry, sick and cold, and who barely enjoys living at all. It seems that the rich person has far mor ...[text shortened]... ive and which to die, there is a good (utilitarian) reason to let the rich guy live.
Discuss.
The poor person could be the only breadwinner in the house, so by his lose a family would suffer, conversally the rich person could employee many people and by his loss, many families would suffer.
The only time I could pick is if by not picking say ten people to die, 100's would instead.
But If I'm "the almighht"...then I change to rules so that both live and all pedo's die in their place...; )
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by RSMA1234Ok, thanks that's a good reply. I should have stipulated that neither has any dependants, so utilitarian arguments need only consider the utility of these particular two people.
Peronally, both lives are important regardless off wealth etc. Every human life is important
The poor person could be the only breadwinner in the house, so by his lose a family would suffer, conversally the rich person could employee many people and by his loss, many families would suffer.
The only time I could pick is if by not picking say ten people ...[text shortened]... lmighht"...then I change to rules so that both live and all pedo's die in their place...; )
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyBoth are very important, and the wealth factor adds nothing to the
Are the lives of poor people as important as those of rich people?
Suppose there is a rich person who is capable in every way of enjoying his or her life to the maximum, aided by their tremendous wealth. And a person living in grinding poverty, always hungry, sick and cold, and who barely enjoys living at all. It seems that the rich person has far mor ...[text shortened]... ive and which to die, there is a good (utilitarian) reason to let the rich guy live.
Discuss.
true worth of a person, as soon as you apply wealth as a factor you
have created a false upper class, almost with the permission to beat
up the lower class of less worth.
Kelly
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyIf we kill the rich guy and distribute his wealth amongst 10 poor people they will in total in terms of life expectancy and standard of living gain far more than the rich guy lost. So lets play Robin Hood and kill the rich to give to the poor!
Are the lives of poor people as important as those of rich people?
Suppose there is a rich person who is capable in every way of enjoying his or her life to the maximum, aided by their tremendous wealth. And a person living in grinding poverty, always hungry, sick and cold, and who barely enjoys living at all. It seems that the rich person has far mor ...[text shortened]... ive and which to die, there is a good (utilitarian) reason to let the rich guy live.
Discuss.
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadYeah, his corpse alone will feed the poor guy for at least a week!
If we kill the rich guy and distribute his wealth amongst 10 poor people they will in total in terms of life expectancy and standard of living gain far more than the rich guy lost. So lets play Robin Hood and kill the rich to give to the poor!
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyFirst of all, rule utilitarianism says we must respect them both equally, because adherence to this rule is more important than saving the happier one.
Ok, thanks that's a good reply. I should have stipulated that neither has any dependants, so utilitarian arguments need only consider the utility of these particular two people.
Secondly, that wealth will not go away at the death of the rich person. It will be passed on to others who will then have better utility from their lives. Not as much is lost as you might think by the death of a rich man who has everything to live for.
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by Iron MonkeySeems the answers to this question are obvious...do we really need a discussion where some people choose the rich guy because he has more to offer to society and the others who say both are equally important?
Are the lives of poor people as important as those of rich people?
Suppose there is a rich person who is capable in every way of enjoying his or her life to the maximum, aided by their tremendous wealth. And a person living in grinding poverty, always hungry, sick and cold, and who barely enjoys living at all. It seems that the rich person has far mor ...[text shortened]... ive and which to die, there is a good (utilitarian) reason to let the rich guy live.
Discuss.
10 Dec 07
Why does the rich person have more to offer society? Just because they are rich does not mean they are not a complete waste of flesh as a person. Of course, this works both ways (the poor person could also be a waste of space) but arbitrarily judging someone's right to life on how much they have in the bank is not viable.
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by Goatboysrevengeyou fall into category 2. Thanks for making my point more obvious if it wasn't already.
Why does the rich person have more to offer society? Just because they are rich does not mean they are not a complete waste of flesh as a person. Of course, this works both ways (the poor person could also be a waste of space) but arbitrarily judging someone's right to life on how much they have in the bank is not viable.
10 Dec 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhy kill the rich? Simply take there wealth and burn it. Then we can all be poor, miserably happy commies. Case closed.
Thankfully, there is still resistance to socialism in the United States, so the Democrats aren't allowed to make the decisions about killing the rich yet.
Granny.