Mathematics used in ethics

I was once rebutted, in this forum, for implying that the deaths of many mattered more than the deaths of few.

The "rebuttal" was that ethics is not just a simple question of numbers.

My question to those who remain here is, why not?

@BigDoggProblem

Are trolls allowed to drop off little one liners in your thread ?
You know? Like ...?

Because you have no life.

@bigdoggproblem said
I was once rebutted, in this forum, for implying that the deaths of many mattered more than the deaths of few.

The "rebuttal" was that ethics is not just a simple question of numbers.

My question to those who remain here is, why not?

I would ask why is it not ethical that the death of any mattered?

Is "ethics" measured by numerical value? 10 is greater than 1 only because of quantity. It may just be me, but I get a sense that ethics refers to, or implies a value measured morally, or by quality, rather than by numbers.

How is the life of one human being of less value ethically than that of ten?

@bigdoggproblem said
I was once rebutted, in this forum, for implying that the deaths of many mattered more than the deaths of few.
The "rebuttal" was that ethics is not just a simple question of numbers.
My question to those who remain here is, why not?

I think you should take it up with the person who gave the rebuttal or, if you wish the rest of us who remain here to jump in, then at least tell us who it was who said it.

Meanwhile my view is that it’s blatantly obvious that the death of two lives collectively matter more than the death of one life.

@BigDoggProblem

The "rebuttal" was that ethics is not just a simple question of numbers.

My question to those who remain here is, why not?

One person's death is significant I think.
Many persons' death is also signficant.

One person's quality of life is significant.
Many and many more persons' quality of life is also significant.

Ie. I participate in a church life as a Christian which I share with millions of others on every continent. We enjoy a high quality of spiritual, practical, and moral life in view of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I think that multitudes on the five continents enjoy this experience communally is significant. But I would also regard it as a high life quality matter if only one, two or three people on the whole earth were experiencing Jesus Christ.

That's on the positive side for us. On the negative side, either one wrongful death or many, many wrongful deaths together are both significant.

That MORE people are involved as opposed to LESS people are involved?
It is not too cut and dry to me. I think the particular case could be considered.

I see no reason to think either more or less in some binary sense flick on Yes or a No. And assigning some threshold exact number would be hard as to WHEN a death has "turned on" or "turned off" the significance switch.

@BigDoggProblem

My question to those who remain here is, why not?

What do you mean by "those who remain here" ? Has there been some kind of mass exodus?

@divegeester said
I think you should take it up with the person who gave the rebuttal or, if you wish the rest of us who remain here to jump in, then at least tell us who it was who said it.

Meanwhile my view is that it’s blatantly obvious that the death of two lives collectively matter more than the death of one life.

It doesn't matter who said it. What matters is the thread topic. Typical of you to sidetrack.

How is it "ethical" that the deaths of two matters more than one?

@secondson said
It doesn't matter who said it.

Yes it does matter as it helps to place the alleged comment into context. For example, if FMF said it I would be surprised and feel the need to invite him to explain further. If Whodey said it then I would put it down to his typical flippancy and disregard the OP altogether.

I am not sure if it is your genuine inability to recognise this forum dynamic which is causing you to chomp on my raising it, or whether it is your visceral dislike of me clouding your judgment and your ego coming into play.

@secondson said
How is it "ethical" that the deaths of two matters more than one?

I suppose it depends somewhat on the level of intellectual honesty with which someone such yourself will apply to the premise of “matters” at face value.

To test the premise is a simple process of revising the question. In a thought experiment where one of two groups needs to die as this...“Do two lives “matter” more than one life”?

If YES, then it would be unethical to chose the group with more than one person.

If the group contained a million people, then the choice is blatantly obvious. Hence my comment.

@divegeester said
Yes it does matter as it helps to place the alleged comment into context. For example, if FMF said it I would be surprised and feel the need to invite him to explain further. If Whodey said it then I would put it down to his typical flippancy and disregard the OP altogether.

I am not sure if it is your genuine inability to recognise this forum dynamic which is causing ...[text shortened]... , or whether it is your visceral dislike of me clouding your judgment and your ego coming into play.

It doesn't matter who said it. The topic of the thread isn't about who said what.

It matters to you because you're emotionally invested in personalities rather than subject matter. Sissyish.

@divegeester said
I suppose it depends somewhat on the level of intellectual honesty with which someone such yourself will apply to the premise of “matters” at face value.

To test the premise is a simple process of revising the question. In a thought experiment where one of two groups needs to die as this...“Do two lives “matter” more than one life”?

If YES, then it would be uneth ...[text shortened]...

If the group contained a million people, then the choice is blatantly obvious. Hence my comment.

So it's your subjective opinion that the deaths of two has greater ethical value than one.

In other words, if you had to choose who dies, you would be justified morally to choose the smaller number.

You remind me of Caiaphas who said, ",..that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Caiaphas, of the sect of the Sadducees, which didn't believe in the resurrection, that had no authority to put someone to death, but conspired to kill Jesus by subterfuge.

@secondson said
It doesn't matter who said it.

I’ve just explained why it matters to me.

@secondson said
So it's your subjective opinion that the deaths of two has greater ethical value than one.

I believe that is what my post succinctly states.

Is it too complicated for you?

@secondson said
You remind me of Caiaphas who said, ",..that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Caiaphas, of the sect of the Sadducees, which didn't believe in the resurrection, that had no authority to put someone to death, but conspired to kill Jesus by subterfuge.

I remind you of someone who conspired to have Jesus put to death. I see.

Now I wonder who here will take issue you posting hatred at me in this way. All these wonderful Christians reading this exchange and yet will sit back and say nothing.

I rest my case.

@secondson said
So it's your subjective opinion that the deaths of two has greater ethical value than one.

In other words, if you had to choose who dies, you would be justified morally to choose the smaller number.

You remind me of Caiaphas who said, ",..that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Caiaphas, of the sect of the Sadducees, which didn't ...[text shortened]... urrection, that had no authority to put someone to death, but conspired to kill Jesus by subterfuge.

Online disinhibition syndrome level - HIGH