Mathematics used in ethics

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

To place value on something you must somehow measure it.
By measuring it you give it a numerical value.

Now in everyday life we do not consciously do this.
Instead we make estimates and comparisons.
(Just like primitive man comparing two clubs. or pieces of meat.)
The fact that we can do that implies they are measurable.

So if Alan's life is worth X kilomorals and Bert's life Y kilomorals we
know that their combined worth of (X+Y) is worth more than either one.

@wolfgang59 said
To place value on something you must somehow measure it.
By measuring it you give it a numerical value.

Now in everyday life we do not consciously do this.
Instead we make estimates and comparisons.
(Just like primitive man comparing two clubs. or pieces of meat.)
The fact that we can do that implies they are measurable.

So if Alan's life is worth X kilomorals an ...[text shortened]... Bert's life Y kilomorals we
know that their combined worth of (X+Y) is worth more than either one.

Unless there is some unified way to measure it, does it matter? If two people approach life from entirely different points of view, will not the means to measure life also be different? The only way this question can be answered in a way that is meaningful to the whole human race is if there was some standard given to human life that didn't depend upon purely human value systems since we don't have one, if and only if, it is just us.

@kellyjay said
The only way this question can be answered in a way that is meaningful to the whole human race is if there was some standard given to human life that didn't depend upon purely human value systems since we don't have one, if and only if, it is just us.

But there is not "some standard given to human life" and we only have "human value systems".

@kellyjay said
If two people approach life from entirely different points of view, will not the means to measure life also be different?

"Different points of view", "the means to measure life also different", "different approaches" etc. etc. It is the human condition.

@kellyjay said
The only way this question can be answered in a way that is meaningful to the whole human race is if there was some standard given to human life,.

And, let me get this straight, the only way YOU think "this question can be answered in a way that is meaningful to the whole human race" just so happens to be rooted in ancient Hebrew mythology and the Christian child sacrifice mythology, right?

-Removed-

What if it is the death of two Nazis vs one Jew?

@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?

In the Bible the Great Flood is a story of killing all but a few in order to prevent mankind from destroying himself due to their wickedness, thus preventing the later births of billions/trillions of people.

Assuming the assumptions are correct, was this justified?

-Removed-

So Republicans are Nazis and you want them to die.

Understood.

Do they go to heaven or hell?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I'm aware of the Trolley Problem but don't see
it relevant to putting worth on a life.

The Trolley Problem is more about the circumstance,
we know nothing about the individuals involved.

@kellyjay said
Unless there is some unified way to measure it, does it matter? If two people approach life from entirely different points of view, will not the means to measure life also be different?

I was proving that 2 lives matter more than one.
The values are of course subjective but my proof is still valid.

@wolfgang59 said
I was proving that 2 lives matter more than one.
The values are of course subjective but my proof is still valid.

All ethical systems which conscience the killing of one person to save two, broadly speaking Utilitarianism or Consequentialism, ultimately cannot reproach Chairman Mao's Great Leaps which killed millions to save billions.

There was a case in English law (sorry I don't have a reference) in which a ship was wrecked at sea, a few castaways got away in a life raft. After they had eaten all the provisions, the survivors decided to kill one of them and eat him to stay alive. When they made land, they were charged with and convicted of murder. The judge's decision was roughly this: suppose they were originally ten men, they killed one so nine could survive. But what if they had not been rescued then, what if they had not been rescued until later. By the crew's logic, they would have killed (and eaten) two to save eight. But what if rescue had come still later: they would have killed three to save seven. And so on. At what point does the 'equation' become immoral: at the break-even point? Is killing four to save six ok, but killing five to save five not ok?? Clearly, the faulty logic starts with killing even one to save regardless how many; either you must be prepared to kill millions, as did Mao, or you just don't start.

The moral thing to do in the life raft situation is for every man aboard to starve, innocent of murder.

There was recent case of a ferry boat which went down, I believe in Korea. The captain was filmed escaping in a life raft while there were still hundreds of people on board, many of whom drowned. He was later apprehended and charged with murder. Rightly so. The captain bears responsibility for the safety his passengers and crew; it's part of his job, last one off the ship, or to go down with the ship. You will recall the case of Sully, who successfully landed his plane in the Hudson River after a double bird strike, and was rightly hailed as a hero, not only for a difficult landing, but for ensuring that everyone got off safely before he left the craft.

Hereagain, the moral thing to do is to go down with ferry/plane if you (the captain) have not ensured that all passengers have gotten off safely. This is what Consequentialism/Utilitarianism cannot account for, for on any Consequentialist/Utilitarian ethical system, one more person dead (i.e., the captain) is a worse moral outcome. This is manifestly wrong. It is not simply a matter of numbers. It matters who you are and what your responsibilities are. Captains have special responsibilities for others' lives which transcend their own lives.

Scout leaders too have special responsibility for those in their charge; any scout leader who left a trapped boy behind in a cave to die would be rightly vilified. Many similar cases could be cited in which a person has taken on a special role which entails responsibility for others' lives, and where the moral thing to do in a crisis is 'to go down with the ship' if you cannot ensure that those who depend on you are safe first, even if it means one more person dies. It's not about numbers; it's about responsibility.

Of course, one will be sorely tempted to save oneself. That is a coward's response to a crisis.