z1235: Why is everyone avoiding a vote or a straw-draw from this discussion? Is it because these would establish a modicum of a State (god forbid!) on the boat?
Why is everyone avoiding a vote or a straw-draw from this discussion? Is it because these would establish a modicum of a State (god forbid!) on the boat?
Actually...
Spideynw:And as I stated earlier, there are quite a few ways to resolve the issue. One, is if everyone agrees to it, could be a democratic vote. Or if everyone agrees, could draw straws (or something similar). But if even one person refused, I would jump off. I would not kill someone else, who is innocent, to save myself.
But...
Daniel:The officer is indispensable. He has a compass and is experienced in handling the boat and the rough sea. He realizes that to save six, he must decide which of the passengers can be sacrificed. The passengers include: a star football quarterback, an unwed pregnant teenager, an elderly nun, a 24-year-old drug dealer who lifts weights and has strong arms, a 70-year-old Pulitzer Prize poet, and a terminally ill librarian given one year to live. Who should the officer sacrifice and why?
If I understood the question correctly, we are supposed to take the role of the captain and choose who goes. Saying "lets put it to a vote" is just dodging the question in my opinion.
As I said, if everyone agrees to a straw-draw or a vote, great. Conflict resolved. But if they don't then you are basically in the same position as before, so its only an diversion from the question. Not an answer.
z1235:Who on the boat would refuse either of these proposals and on what basis?
I suppose anyone who didn't believe in gambling (Nun's out), valued their life more than the odds, thought voting itself was immoral, thought the voters didn't have enough information to decide best, etc...
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
z1235:Why is everyone avoiding a vote or a straw-draw from this discussion?
Thanks.
I'm starting to think more and more that this question is loaded for a politically correct socially just answer.
If you pick the football payer, you must hate negroes (statistically, anyway, since we're missing more than a few details). And if you don't pick him, it shows that you value people with meaningless contributions to society. The drug dealer? He's just a product of his environment. What we think of him is just a reflection of how society views misfits. The officer is the indispensable state, necessary for the survival of society. The pregnant teenager? You hate women and the less fortunate. You might even be one of those evil bastards who wants to cut taxes and social spending that the less fortunate require. The eldarly nun? Male Chauvinism, ageism, or religious intolerance. Take your pick. The Poet? Ageism again and possibly homophobic as well. Librarian? You hate the sick. You're probably one of those heartless scumbags who complains about others being a burden.
I can see the early thirties feminist sociology teacher now. So how many of you picked ______? Oh, this is so interesting. You know there's this herstorical case of blah blah blah. Why do you think so many of you picked _____? Wow, I guess we know what we need to work on.
Spence: You ever kill anybody?
Sam: I hurt somebody's feelings once.
Stephen:I'm starting to think more and more that this question is loaded for a politically correct socially just answer.
This question was posed to my Humanities 101 class. So, yeah. I'm pretty sure it's loaded.
Stephen:If you pick the football payer, you must hate negroes (statistically, anyway, since we're missing more than a few details). And if you don't pick him, it shows that you value people with meaningless contributions to society.
The football player is a quarterback, which means that, statistically, he is white. Had it been any other position, then he would have been black.
Stephen:The drug dealer?
Stereotypically black.
Stephen:The Poet?
High arts.
Stephen:Librarian?
Intellectualism.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
The player and the dealer are strong with big egos. They cannot be thrown out. The teenager would be killing two.
The nun, the librarian, the poet shall play rock, paper, scissors, lizzard, Spock!
Daniel: Stephen:If you pick the football payer, you must hate negroes (statistically, anyway, since we're missing more than a few details). And if you don't pick him, it shows that you value people with meaningless contributions to society. The football player is a quarterback, which means that, statistically, he is white. Had it been any other position, then he would have been black.
K, you're right. Shows how much I know about football. Well, I think that's the politically correct answer. Kill the white guy that has it all.
Angurse: If I understood the question correctly, we are supposed to take the role of the captain and choose who goes. Saying "lets put it to a vote" is just dodging the question in my opinion. As I said, if everyone agrees to a straw-draw or a vote, great. Conflict resolved. But if they don't then you are basically in the same position as before, so its only an diversion from the question. Not an answer.
Btw, I'm aware that a vote and a straw-draw was already proposed here. It was I who did it first and spidey mentioned it, too. I was only wondering how these didn't get much traction, at all, especially when compared to the rest of the suggestions.
A vote or a straw-draw are the ONLY alternatives (among the many offered) that would resolve the situation in a fair, equal, and, most importantly, value-free manner. The fairness, thus "justfullness" of every value-, moral-based alternative would pre-suppose uniform acceptance of those values by everyone on the boat, including the "victim" of that value-based resolution. This I find to be MUCH less likely than everyone's acceptance of a vote or a draw.
To generalize, 7 people are facing resources enough for only 6. Each life is equally important to each person. How do these 7 people resolve this WITHOUT getting into how "bad" or "good" each thinks everyone else is? Even better, how do they resolve this without knowing ANYTHING about each other, except, perhaps that one of them may have a convincingly superior ability to lead them to land?
And why would anyone on the boat allow the captain to be "the decider" as to who gets sacrificed? The conjectures as to who "owns" the boat are ridiculous in this situation. Could the rich drug dealer just "buy" the boat from the captain right there on the spot thus gaining the "right" to decide who gets sacrificed instead? Wouldn't the football player then offer couple $million more for the boat and enter into a bidding war with the drug dealer while the others just sit and observe the show? What planet is this happening on?
Finally, I am amazed as to how many here would even venture to dissect the "quality" (thus "value") of the lives of the people involved. At first I thought this was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, but then I realized: "These people are seriously discussing this!". Wow!
Angurse: z1235:Who on the boat would refuse either of these proposals and on what basis? I suppose anyone who didn't believe in gambling (Nun's out), valued their life more than the odds, thought voting itself was immoral, thought the voters didn't have enough information to decide best, etc...
Easy. Each of the survivors gets to propose a scheme to resolve this and then they all vote for the winning scheme. The captain proposes "I get to decide". The nun proposes "I get to decide." I propose "Let's vote". The drug dealer proposes "Let's do a draw.". Then the decision on how this would be decided would again be chosen in a fair, and most importantly value-free manner. I have a feeling that a vote and a draw would be at the top of the list after the vote, but I could be wrong.
Z.
Phenomenal, bro.
To darkness I condemn you...
Conza88:Because it has nothing to do with justice. It is instead - an attempt to appear 'just' and 'fair', by defaulting to chance and luck, instead of employing logic & reasoning, along with property rights and the non aggression axiom. It is a dodge.
But I disagree. I believe that a vote or a draw ARE the most just and fair. Where's your 'logic' and 'reasoning' now? We're already disagreeing and we're not even on the boat, but comfortably sitting in our chairs and typing this!! Do you think we'd be more likely to agree on the boat?
Conza88:Probably the person who acknowledges it had nothing to do with justice, including the person who understands the potential for their rights to be violated, or feels they would be most likely to be voted out, even if they have the most to offer.
"...even if they had most to offer."(!?) "Most" by whose standards, and "offer" to whom?
Conza88:If you disagree with my analysis and conclusions in this thread, can you state what and why.
I already stated why, and you are free to find my explanation unsatisfactory. That's the beauty and point of equality and justice. How do we resolve things between each other even if we didn't care for each others backgrounds, dogmas, explanations, beliefs, values, or reasoning. A pretty simple and powerful concept, if you ask me.
z1235:Btw, I'm aware that a vote and a straw-draw was already proposed here. It was I who did it first and spidey mentioned it, too. I was only wondering how these didn't get much traction, at all, especially when compared to the rest of the suggestions.
Perhaps because, it isn't an answer to the question.
z1235: A vote or a straw-draw are the ONLY alternatives (among the many offered) that would resolve the situation in a fair, equal, and, most importantly, value-free manner. The fairness, thus "justfullness" of every value-, moral-based alternative would pre-suppose uniform acceptance of those values by everyone on the boat, including the "victim" of that value-based resolution. This I find to be MUCH less likely than everyone's acceptance of a vote or a draw.
1. You haven't determined that the captain just picking isn't fair. 2. Voting isn't fair. Drawing straws isn't smart 3. You've presupposed that they will accept voting. 4. The question wasn't what are they likely to accept. 5. Its a moral-laden question, trying to find value-free solutions is dodging the question.
z1235:To generalize, 7 people are facing resources enough for only 6. Each life is equally important to each person. How do these 7 people resolve this WITHOUT getting into how "bad" or "good" each thinks everyone else is? Even better, how do they resolve this without knowing ANYTHING about each other, except, perhaps that one of them may have a convincingly superior ability to lead them to land?
Exactly. Voting would be absolutely silly.
z1235:And why would anyone on the boat allow the captain to be "the decider" as to who gets sacrificed? The conjectures as to who "owns" the boat are ridiculous in this situation. Could the rich drug dealer just "buy" the boat from the captain right there on the spot thus gaining the "right" to decide who gets sacrificed instead? Wouldn't the football player then offer couple $million more for the boat and enter into a bidding war with the drug dealer while the others just sit and observe the show? What planet is this happening on?
Who cares how ridiculous it may be? That was the question proposed.
"And why would anyone on the boat allow the captain voters to be "the decider" as to who gets sacrificed? The conjectures as to who "owns" decides on the boat are ridiculous in this situation. Could the rich drug dealer just "buy" the boat votes from the captain other voters right there on the spot thus gaining the "right" to decide who gets sacrificed instead? Wouldn't the football player then offer couple $million more for the boat votes and enter into a bidding war with the drug dealer while the others just sit and observe the show? What planet is this happening on?"
z1235:Finally, I am amazed as to how many here would even venture to dissect the "quality" (thus "value") of the lives of the people involved. At first I thought this was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, but then I realized: "These people are seriously discussing this!". Wow!
Oooh. I guess we should feel really bad now.
z1235:Easy. Each of the survivors gets to propose a scheme to resolve this and then they all vote for the winning scheme. The captain proposes "I get to decide". The nun proposes "I get to decide." I propose "Let's vote". The drug dealer proposes "Let's do a draw.". Then the decision on how this would be decided would again be chosen in a fair, and most importantly value-free manner. I have a feeling that a vote and a draw would be at the top of the list after the vote, but I could be wrong.
So the solution to "what if some don't want to vote?" is "vote on it." What if some don't want to vote? You ultimately end up at the same starting point. And there isn't anything fair about majority rule.
Angurse:1. You haven't determined that the captain just picking isn't fair. 2. Voting isn't fair. Drawing straws isn't smart 3. You've presupposed that they will accept voting. 4. The question wasn't what are they likely to accept. 5. Its a moral-laden question, trying to find value-free solutions is dodging the question.
1. I don't have to. 2. That's your opinion 3. No, I haven't, I just conjectured that it would be a scheme most likely to be accepted by all survivors. Everyone would be free to suggest a scheme, just like we are doing here. How do YOU propose the survivors choose THE right one? 4. Not all my statements were made as direct answers to the question. 5. Says who?
Angurse:Who cares how ridiculous it may be? That was the question proposed.
It's ridiculous to me.
Angurse:"And why would anyone on the boat allow the captain voters to be "the decider" as to who gets sacrificed? The conjectures as to who "owns" decides on the boat are ridiculous in this situation. Could the rich drug dealer just "buy" the boat votes from the captain other voters right there on the spot thus gaining the "right" to decide who gets sacrificed instead? Wouldn't the football player then offer couple $million more for the boat votes and enter into a bidding war with the drug dealer while the others just sit and observe the show? What planet is this happening on?"
Fine, let everyone try to buy out everyone else. The voting would be anonimous. The drug dealer is free to "pay" me $million in exchange for my promise not to vote him off. I may decide to vote him off exactly BECAUSE he tried to bribe me -- without him even finding out that I "broke" our contract. He'd have to weigh his chances, but it would be far from clear that his money would buy him anything in this situation. Unless he's a moron.
Angurse:So the solution to "what if some don't want to vote?" is "vote on it." What if some don't want to vote?
They don't have to. Voting wouldn't be compulsory.
Angurse:You ultimately end up at the same starting point.
Actually, I'm miles ahead. Nothing else proposed came even close to resolving the situation.
Angurse:And there isn't anything fair about majority rule.
There's at least enough "fair" about it, especially when compared to 7 different and colliding measures for absolute "fairness". How would YOU propose that we resolve them "fairly"?
z1235: 1. I don't have to. 2. That's your opinion 3. No, I haven't, I just conjectured that it would be a scheme most likely to be accepted by all survivors. Everyone would be free to suggest a scheme, just like we are doing here. How do YOU propose the survivors choose THE right one? 4. Not all my statements were made as direct answers to the question. 5. Says who?
1. I apologize, I thought you were trying to answer the question. Not just throw stuff out there. 2. For the individual being at the mercy of 6 is the same as being at the mercy of 1. And it certainly isn't smart to have the captain (who is needed for everyone's else's survival) have as much of a chance as being ejected as the others 3. Earlier you called it fair, now its just likely to be accepted. Those are two entirely different things. 4. See 1. 5.
Daniel:What would be the moral answer to this situation
z1235:It's ridiculous to me.
Then don't participate.
z1235:Fine, let everyone try to buy out everyone else. The voting would be anonimous. The drug dealer is free to "pay" me $million in exchange for my promise not to vote him off. I may decide to vote him off exactly BECAUSE he tried to bribe me -- without him even finding out that I "broke" our contract. He'd have to weigh his chances, but it would be far from clear that his money would buy him anything in this situation. Unless he's a moron.
Ignoring how anonymous voting would be on a life raft (what planet is this happening on?) you still ignored why I'm going to accept the vote. Or even participate.
And going back to your earlier post:
z1235:And why would anyone on the boat allow the captain to be "the decider" as to who gets sacrificed? The conjectures as to who "owns" the boat are ridiculous in this situation. Could the rich drug dealer just "buy" the boat from the captain right there on the spot thus gaining the "right" to decide who gets sacrificed instead? Wouldn't the football player then offer couple $million more for the boat and enter into a bidding war with the drug dealer while the others just sit and observe the show?
z1235:They don't have to. Voting wouldn't be compulsory.
z1235:Actually, I'm miles ahead. Nothing else proposed came even close to resolving the situation.
z1235:There's at least enough "fair" about it, especially when compared to 7 different and colliding measures for absolute "fairness". How would YOU propose that we resolve them "fairly"?
Angurse:Good. If it doesn't apply to those not participating there isn't a conflict. If it does then you are right back at the starting point.
So the goal is to find a moral answer that would resolve the situation without a conflict? Let me get my large pop-corn bag for this one.
Angurse: z1235:Actually, I'm miles ahead. Nothing else proposed came even close to resolving the situation. Really? Hoping people will agree to a vote and accept the outcome is miles ahead of hoping people will accept the captains decision. Right.
Uhm...Yes?
z1235:So the goal is to find a moral answer that would resolve the situation without a conflict? Let me get my large pop-corn bag for this one.
The goal is to find a moral answer. Avoiding conflict would be nice though.
z1235:Uhm...Yes?
I'm not so good with English units, miles are supposed to be relatively long distances right? Because hoping people will vote and accept the outcome certainly isn't very many kilometers ahead.
Angurse:The goal is to find a moral answer.
Just curious. Is there an assumption on your part that a single moral answer exists (the difficulty of discerning it notwithstanding)? Or there may be more than one, each characterized with a different degree of "morality"?
z1235:Just curious. Is there an assumption on your part that a single moral answer exists (the difficulty of discerning it notwithstanding)? Or there may be more than one, each characterized with a different degree of "morality"?
I think morals are subjective. I have my moral answer, you have yours, etc... But we can still argue over which is superior. (Like arguing what movie is funnier)
Angurse:I think morals are subjective. I have my moral answer, you have yours, etc... But we can still argue over which is superior. (Like arguing what movie is funnier)
So the boat survivors would be somehow better off (kilometers ahead) if they argued about the superiority of their moral answers instead of simply arguing (yelling, eventually) over who should be thrown off the boat (morals be damned)? How is the former superior to (further ahead from) the latter?
z1235: So the boat survivors would be somehow better off (kilometers ahead) if they argued about the superiority of their moral answers instead of simply arguing (yelling, eventually) over who should be thrown off the boat (morals be damned)? How is the former superior to (further ahead from) the latter?
You've misinterpreted me. Let me try and make it clearer.
I think morals are subjective. I have my moral answer, you have yours, etc... But we [we at are computers] can still argue over which is superior. (Like arguing what movie is funnier)
I never said the survivors arguing over morals is superior to arguing over who should go. The people on the boat probably won't care, save for maybe the nun and philosopher.
z1235: Conza88:Because it has nothing to do with justice. It is instead - an attempt to appear 'just' and 'fair', by defaulting to chance and luck, instead of employing logic & reasoning, along with property rights and the non aggression axiom. It is a dodge. But I disagree. I believe that a vote or a draw ARE the most just and fair. Where's your 'logic' and 'reasoning' now? We're already disagreeing and we're not even on the boat, but comfortably sitting in our chairs and typing this!! Do you think we'd be more likely to agree on the boat?
"Wheres your logic and reasoning now?" Where it has always been - based on first principles. Where is yours? Yours is merely a subjective preference, there is nothing objective or deductive about it. It is not based on property rights, or axioms, or natural law.
Nor have you presented any kind of proof, or argument. You disagree, great. So what? That doesn't change the fact, my ownership of the lifeboat seat has been justly acquired. More importantly, that is what DRO's are for, but there is no chance of a legitimate DRO on the boat because everyone is an interested player. And no, the officer isn't independent.
I paid for my lifeboat seat, it was in the contract - I don't care if you all want to do a vote, I'm not budging voluntarily. This seat is rightfully mine. Why is it "just" or "fair" for you to steal my property? Do you call yourself a libertarian? Define "just" and define "fair" please."Do you think we'd be more likely to agree on the boat?"Location is irrelevant. Are you able to use reason, or not?
z1235: Conza88:Probably the person who acknowledges it had nothing to do with justice, including the person who understands the potential for their rights to be violated, or feels they would be most likely to be voted out, even if they have the most to offer. "...even if they had most to offer."(!?) "Most" by whose standards, and "offer" to whom?
Exactly. You just re-proved my point. Thank you. Utilitarianism is a joke, just as I have said previously in this thread. Yet, you don't even bother to hide behind "the greatest goods for the greatest number".. instead random chance and 'democracy' by vote [Which put to death Socrates and Jesus Christ] is some how "fair" and "just". Was the killing of Socrates, "fair" or "just"? Why not? There was a vote. If all the participants voluntarily agreed to a vote or straws, there is more plausibility to it [appearing just]- but what generally happens? People go in thinking that their chances are good, but when they get picked - or lose out, then it's "no - I'm not going". If we are to base it on Libertarian contract theory, the vote or draw straw, it is just a promise to do something, and that is not sufficient enough to be legally enforceable. There is no property transfer of title. And here in lies the paradox, if just property has in fact been allocated - there would be no need to do straws or vote!
z1235: Conza88:If you disagree with my analysis and conclusions in this thread, can you state what and why. I already stated why, and you are free to find my explanation unsatisfactory. That's the beauty and point of equality and justice. How do we resolve things between each other even if we didn't care for each others backgrounds, dogmas, explanations, beliefs, values, or reasoning. A pretty simple and powerful concept, if you ask me.
Equality of law? You surely don't mean equality of opportunity do you? That would be socialist. Well then, what law? You have resorted to drawing straws and a vote. That is your concept of 'equality', and 'law' ?
Justice? What justice? You surely don't mean social justice do you? That would be socialist. Well then, what justice? You have resorted to drawing straws and a vote. That is your concept of 'justice'?
Conza88:I paid for my lifeboat seat, it was in the contract - I don't care if you all want to do a vote, I'm not budging voluntarily. This seat is rightfully mine.
Are you assuming that the other people's seats are not rightfully "theirs"? Btw, there was no mention of any seat "ownership" in the OP, so where do you even start with the premise that you have more right to a seat on the boat than anyone else?
Conza88:Why is it "just" or "fair" for you to steal my property?
Your claim is to 1/6 of the boat. The other six also claim 1/6 of the boat for a total of 7/6. There are 6/6 resources facing 7/6 claims. How do you propose these seven claims get resolved?
Conza88:Do you call yourself a libertarian?
No, I'm a proponent of klingon-sharia law. Would this have any bearing as to how you would resolve the issue with me on the boat?
Conza88:Exactly. You just re-proved my point. Thank you. Utilitarianism is a joke, just as I have said previously in this thread. Yet, you don't even bother to hide behind "the greatest goods for the greatest number"..
Easy there. I can't remember if it was natural law, common sense, or something my dad told me when I was little but I'm assuming the rule is that you "argue" only with the things that I've actually written. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
Conza88:If we are to base it on Libertarian contract theory, the vote or draw straw, it is just a promise to do something, and that is not sufficient enough to be legally enforceable. There is no property transfer of title.
What else are contracts BUT promises to do something? And as for vote or draw outcomes not being legally enforceable by contract, are you saying that contract obligations can never be contingent on future outcomes? How do you think options or insurance contracts work?
Conza88:And here in lies the paradox, if just property has in fact been allocated - there would be no need to do straws or vote!
The paradox is in your head only. There is no mention of any property allocation in the OP.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap