Deciding Whose Death Matters Most

Asking the question is comparatively easy. Finding the answer is hard.

...

Complete entry

Posted by Aleksei Riikonen  on  11/20  at  09:13 PM

A good answer to this question:

http://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html

What matters most is preventing the extinction of human (or other worthwhile) life. An existential risk outcome would represent the loss of an astronomical amount of lives, and is astronomically more important to avoid than the ongoing deaths of comparatively small numbers of people.

Posted by CygnusX1  on  11/21  at  02:14 PM

I would say that all these humanitarian crises have equal importance, and that perhaps we should think about addressing them all? Perhaps we just need to be more organised, (globally), in the way we tackle these problems?

I am guessing that most folks would want to change the entire world for the better, yet find it impossible to do this : or am I just another idealist?

Spock -- "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one"
Kirk -- "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many"

Which one of these lines is correct : you decide!

Posted by veronica  on  11/22  at  03:09 AM

Maybe the priority (at least in some cases) should go to the disease rather than the person. I read somewhere that in one city where this is done, the person with pneumonia would go first, because it can be very deadly, yet it's the most curable.

Posted by veronica  on  11/22  at  03:15 AM

(In the city I was referring to, hunger was not at all common.)

I noticed the title of this essay is "Deciding whose death matters most." Why that title, instead of "Deciding whose life matters most"?

Posted by schroob  on  11/30  at  03:58 PM

Or maybe "Deciding whose death matters least"??? It's funny that the author says that the question is easy....I think the issue is that it's even hard to define the right question! Everyone is raising great points and coming up with ways to try to address the question. But if we cannot define exactly what the question is, how do we begin to answer it?

Aleksei's quote states that the prevention of humankind's extinction (or the perpetuation of "worthwhile" life) is the highest imperative. On a larger scale, why is humankind's perpetual existence the prime imperative? And what measurement would be used to determine what life is "worthwhile"? On a smaller scale, what if the "ongoing deaths of comparatively small numbers of people" killed off the only people with antibodies needed to fight a global disease of epidemic proportions? Not that we could ever know that beforehand...but still, if we're measuring babies for their potential worth, we need to measure ANY potential worth, right?

As far as prioritizing aid on the basis of the disease...what if the disease isn't the root cause of the problem? What if it's lack of arable land to produce food, or desperate poverty that fails to address basic needs for life, lack of education about health, religious practices that are detrimental to well-being, or a country ruled by a despot?

I certainly don't suggest that we stop trying to help. But we do need to open ourselves up to asking more questions...and figuring out if there's anything we can do to help.

---

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: