What about survival situations ?

[Gaspard]

Yes and no.

I read your aznswers and it seems to me that you really wanted to look at it from a rational point of view.
(In Pascal Quignard the "choose either your sister or you lover" question is answer as follow: I would choose my sister because I could find a new lover but I have only one sister.)
Obviously your answers express your values.
Would you say that these answers could define the relative value of life? , If so, would you conclude that the archetypal being you would hypotethically save has, in general, more value than the one who is let to die?

 

[Mischief]

I totally agree with you. So how do you explain that the "you can only save one question" appear so often in ethical veganism? Why are so many vegans asking this question? And why do they conclude that their answer could quantify the relative value of life?

I think we hear this type of question from young people and those new to veg*nism.

The very young tend toward hypotheticals, IME. My friends and I spent a lot of late nights very seriously discussing all kinds of weird hypotheticals when we were in college.

 

[Gaspard]

I think we hear this type of question from young people and those new to veg*nism.

Well, no not from my knowledge.

Here is a quote by Andy_T who post on this forum since 2014 (the quote comes from the thread about the Argument From Marginal Cases):

I would say that humans and animals are not equal.

If I was a firefighter and faced with the decision that I could only save one, the two persons trapped in a blaze being an 80-year-old, terminally ill quadriplegic and my own young, healthy puppy, I would always try to rescue the human.

Unatural Vegan, in her last video used also this argument.
Catherine Klein commented something similar about quadriplegic and healthy human.

Actually I started this thread because I've very often heard this demonstration from rational adults.
Well I obviously think it is flawed.

 

[Brian W]

People often can't tell the difference between objective value and understandable emotion. We tend to value humans more because we are human but many think this is an objective measurement of relative value and it obviously isn't.

 

[Max Caulfield]

I read your answers and it seems to me that you really wanted to look at it from a rational point of view.
(In Pascal Quignard the "choose either your sister or you lover" question is answer as follow: I would choose my sister because I could find a new lover but I have only one sister.)
Obviously your answers express your values.
Would you say that these answers could define the relative value of life? , If so, would you conclude that the archetypal being you would hypotethically save has, in general, more value than the one who is let to die?

Rational approach of making a decision on information you've at hand is essentially the best approach in situations you have limited time to make a decision (unless time so limited that you simply don't have any time to think it even briefly through), leaving you without ability to inquire further information about situation.

I would say scarcity isn't always indicative of value in itself, sure you may have only one sister but you can dislike your sister or don't care about her that much. Not to mention, generally speaking your sister will probably play lesser role (personal and financial) in your adult life than your lover that you probably will interact with on daily basis (then is it positive, negative or indifferent role that your lover plays?).

Theoretically, one could estimate value according to such set of criteria, but practically you wouldn't be able to do so accurately and would have to rely on probability (via inductive reasoning) rather than definitive answer (via deductive reasoning) as we have no way of obtaining all relevant data to establish such value. Pretty much if you want reliable method of problem solving you've to work with information you've and potentially what information you could obtain within given time-span to make better informed decision. Of course such decision not always will be best one you could have made as I've said you rely on incomplete set of information, going off probability. Meaning even if there is 99 % of chance that for an example that Trump won't become president, there is still 1 % chance that that he will, what would simply mean extremely unlikely event have occurred.

 

[Gaspard]

1) A blind quadriplegic or a child - the child, the blind quadriplegic is probably waiting for death anyway on a level the child is not, and the child has a chance at a fuller life with the given they have more faculties than the blind quadriplegic.

Do you think we can generalise then? And say that children have more moral value than disable people? In short, do you think that hypothetical survival situations can establish the intrinsic value of life?

 

[Max Caulfield]

Do you think we can generalise then? And say that children have more moral value than disable people? In short, do you think that hypothetical survival situations can establish the intrinsic value of life?

Yes, in absence of definitive conclusion, relying on probability is your best bet. Generally speaking yes, at least by it's utility and length, there are of course outliers but chances that I would leaving someone like Steven Hawkins to die are extremely low.

I think hypothetical moral dilemmas are more of a devices to investigate decision making and moral system of people that will be responding to it (although it doesn't really demonstrate their actual response when exposed to such scenario) and perhaps they may even help thought and improve moral system of an individual and prepare us to make decision in such or similar decisions quicker in case we happened to find ourselves in such situation. I suppose such scenarios can make us think what of what we value and in what why we value it, so they could help someone to establish both intrinsic value and instrumental one, although I think answers would to an extent differ depending to each individual.

 

[Nekodaiden]

Do you think we can generalise then? And say that children have more moral value than disable people? In short, do you think that hypothetical survival situations can establish the intrinsic value of life?

Not at all. However, think about your question when you hear the phrase "women and children first".

 

[Ahimsa]

I’d be delighted to hear from you about extreme survival situations. Are they relevant to veganism?

I bet you've already answered the “you can only save one” question… So I'm quite sure you wouldn't mind exploring the ethics of surch an interrogation. I’d be mostly pleased to read your answers.

If you were caught in a fire and could only save one person, who would you choose?

1) A blind quadriplegic or a child

2) Your puppy or your cat

3) A black women or a white man

4) Your lover or your sister

5) A child who has 0,0001% chance of survival or a disabled person who has 100% chance to survive

6) A healthy rapist or a dying friend

Fun isn’t it?

I would save my wife, as she's the one person, and my dog, as the question says nothing about non-persons. Seriously though, I have often discussed this question with my wife, who uses it as an excuse for having more than one man to protect her, especially a younger man! Lol.