The Ethics of Valuing Human Lives

When—if ever—is it right to choose a policy that will consign certain numbers of a population to a likely death, while presumably giving far greater numbers the opportunity to live a better life?

...

Complete entry

Posted by Jef Allbright  on  04/27  at  01:17 PM

Good thought-provoking piece, Mike.

We expect effective ethical decision-making from our leaders, be they military commanders, political delegates, or business heads. But we don't so often consider that the double-edged sword of accelerating technology brings increasing instrumentality--and thus the demands of a more sophisticated morality--closer to the hands of individuals everywhere.

Posted by Shane Brauner  on  04/27  at  01:17 PM

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the great article. I've also enjoyed the track switching dilemma with a child (or your child) on the safety track rather than a derelict. It's easy for people to relate to it.

Things get more difficult with decisions of policy. Truman dropping the bomb had an obvious and direct affect on people's lives, but with policies whose impact is not so direct (like investment in science and research), the problem is more one of the public realizing that a decision is being made, rather than which choice is the "right" one.

Any thoughts on how to raise awareness in general?

Shane

Posted by hector  on  04/27  at  01:45 PM

"I would suggest that we should think deeply about such decisions before we are ever in a position to make them"

Though I personally haven't yet thought so deeply about such decisions, I did read one author who may have. I thought I'd share the following:
"For 25 years, I have asked high school seniors whether they would first save their drowning dog or a drowning stranger. Only one out of three ever votes to save the stranger. I have always attributed this to the secular culture's reduction of human worth to that of animals, and to raising personal feelings ("I love my dog") above moral values (human life is sacred). But there is a third reason -- the fear of strangers that their parents and society have bequeathed to them. Many of those who vote to save the animal tell me that the stranger may turn out to be an evil person." -- Dennis Prager

Posted by jcs  on  04/27  at  03:46 PM

Great post!

When I was thinking about your post today, I came up with a slight modification to your scenario. What if we devised a way to kill that minimized the destruction survivors had to deal with and without causing pain (or even while inducing euphoria!) in the condemned?

Would your decision change if you could effectively separate suffering from death?

Posted by Jim Zoehrer  on  04/27  at  04:26 PM

You make some good points Mike. In the first instances you make a compelling argument for the the needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many argument.

I'm not so sure that Emperor Trajan would be considered a despot by today's standards. Surely he invaded other people's lands without their invitation. Given the time and technology then it might have been necessary. As beings that perceive time in a linear way we cannot simply go back to 98A.D. and witness or influence history.

Technically, the Romans had modern technology on their side. Even if there were not Roman Emperors to send in Roman Legions to conquer vast lands the lands outside of Rome would want the technology and it would naturally emerge in the outside lands.

Rome, though did it quicker by invading and conquering instead.
If you look at people today they are quick to grasp at new technologies, for instance cellular broadband communication. Globally it was a mere speck of thought just ten years ago. It started to come out and it has been grasped whole heartily. The demand for this technology fueled its growth.

Technology will emerge it is just how well will it perform.

Posted by hector  on  04/27  at  04:54 PM

"I'm not so sure that Emperor Trajan would be considered a despot by today's standards."

Well, what would "today's standards" have to say about the following:
"In the year 107 CE, during a four-month celebration of his conquest of Dacia, Trajan -- who was perhaps trying to match Augustus' record -- held a major tournament in which 10,000 gladiators and 3,000 animals fought. This meant that whoever sat through that spectacle watched at least 5,000 people die. Trajan was so fond of this kind of massacre -- and he had a large supply of Dacian prisoners of war for the purpose -- that he apparently sent 23,000 people to their slaughter between 106 and 118 CE."

Posted by Linda MacDonald Glenn  on  04/30  at  09:04 AM

Dennis, this is not necessarily to be attributed to a "secular culture's reduction of human worth to that of animals," but rather something that feminist bioethics have recognized a long time ago -- it's the relationship that counts. Ask any parent if they would choose to save their child, even if meant several others would die. You also might want to ask your high school students, 'if you had a choice between saving a sibling or saving 2 strangers" and see the response.

Placing a stranger's life above the life of another sentient being also reflects hierarchical thinking, something has led to a lack of respect for other life forms, sentient or not. Our responsibilities/moral obligations do not stop at the species border -- which, by the way, is not fixed or immutable.

Posted by hector  on  04/30  at  03:45 PM

"Placing a stranger's life above the life of another sentient being also reflects hierarchical thinking, something has led to a lack of respect for other life forms, sentient or not. "

I submit that it is impossible NOT to engage in hierarchical thinking of this sort. Something has to come in second place. In Prager's case, it /should've/ been the dog.

Posted by Linda MacDonald Glenn  on  04/30  at  10:32 PM

Impossible for who? Perhaps I should have said 'exclusive hierarchical thinking' is something that has led to a lack of respect for other life forms.' If you think about the true nature of interdependence, you will realize that there are many different ways of looking at relationships. The hierarchical relationship is vertical; but it is horizontal relationships that help to establish links with what is around us, including animals, the earth, and our fellow creatures. There is a relationship between the horizontal and vertical; one without the other leads to an incomplete picture.

---

Add your comment here:

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: