I tend to agree with Mentally Ill on this one. I mean its one thing if he is noble about it and is willing to sacrifice himself. It's completely different if he's sitting there begging for his life.

Imagine explaining that later......"yeah I mean we wanted to live so we killed a man begging for his life"

Obvious to whom?
It seems that this is a value judgement.
I doubt it's that obvious to the petty criminal's mother.
Is the value of a life, a democratic value, or an absolute value?

I would not expect it to be obvious to the criminal's mother. But then, many true things are not obvious to those who have other fish to fry. And, of course, that Einstein's life is more valuable than that of a petty criminal is a value judgment. What would anyone think it is other than that? But, by any objective measure, Einstein's life was "infinitely" more valuable than that of a petty criminal, or else, of course, the notion of one life being more valuable than another doesn't mean anything.

Since I can't possibly know the true effect of Einstein's life 500 years from now, the notion of one life being more valuable than another can only be speculative.

It is obvious that Albert Einstein's life was worth far more than some petty criminal's. Who would deny that?

I would deny it. We're not talking about careers, but lives.
Evaluating the worth of human life by utility is using people as a means to an end, and thus disrespectful and inappropriate.

You must be joking. Why do I have to know such a thing to say with confidence that Einstein's life was far more valuable than that of a petty criminal? Do I have to know what the effect of Hitler will be in 500 years to know he was a very evil person? Where did you dredge up such a thought?

How should we evaluate the worth of human life, then?

Obviously you place a different value on such things as nuclear weapons.
Maybe you haven't heard the parable about the Korean guy who finds a horse in his field. "Is this a good thing or a bad thing"
How do you know what the future holds for the petty criminal.
Maybe you've killed the next Einstein.

What is all this about nuclear weapons? Where did that come from? I know very well what the future holds for the petty criminal. It ain't good. Maybe you mean by "know" know with certainty, and without the possibility of error. I expect you do. Well, no, I don't know with certainty, and neither does anyone else. But so what. We don't have to know with certainty, to know. I don't know with certainty that if I jump from a 10 story building I am apt not to live. So, I don't jump from 10 story buildings. As David Hume tells us, "probability is the guide to life". You know well enough what is going to happen to the criminal, and you know well enough how Einstein's life will be evaluated in 500 years even if we have a nuclear war, since no rational person will think that if we do, that it was Einstein's fault that we did.

That's not a very good argument. Just sayin...

What isn't a very good argument? Just askin'.... And if you think it isn't why don't you say why it isn't? Just wonderin'.... Just sayin' an argument isn't a good argument is sayin' nothin' worth considerin'. You have to say why what you say isn't a good argument isn't a good argument.

Well, I was more interested in the conversation we were having and didn't really want to dive into that one between the two of you.
But I also wanted to let you know I thought that your line of reasoning was pretty weak.
What do you think about what I wrote?

Well, since you gave no reason for thinking that my line of reasoning was weak, but just said it was, I don't think much of what you wrote. What should I think of it?

What is all this about nuclear weapons? Where did that come from? I know very well what the future holds for the petty criminal. It ain't good. Maybe you mean by "know" know with certainty, and without the possibility of error. I expect you do. Well, no, I don't know with certainty, and neither does anyone else. But so what. We don't have to know with certainty, to know. I don't know with certainty that if I jump from a 10 story building I am apt not to live. So, I don't jump from 10 story buildings. As David Hume tells us, "probability is the guide to life". You know well enough what is going to happen to the criminal, and you know well enough how Einstein's life will be evaluated in 500 years even if we have a nuclear war, since no rational person will think that if we do, that it was Einstein's fault that we did.

I tend to agree with Mentally Ill on this one. I mean its one thing if he is noble about it and is willing to sacrifice himself. It's completely different if he's sitting there begging for his life.

Imagine explaining that later......"yeah I mean we wanted to live so we killed a man begging for his life"

question....are there things worth dying for?

I tend to think there are. . . . .and respecting an innocent [emphasis added] man's wish for life might would qualify.

This is obviously easy to talk about and a lot less easy to put into practice but I think if he is pleading for his life it wouldn't be right for me to kill him to save my own life.

Of course I'd probably be calling him every name in the book and trying to guilt and shame him into sacrificing himself but if he was dead set on no, then I'd be in the wrong to kill him I think

lol. well perhaps who ever came up with the thought experiment should have 'thought' about that, but nevertheless I could change to say the Big Jack was panicking while we were down there and he actually found the hole first and ran for it without waiting for the rest of us....that's plausible.

If you want you could also pretend all we have with us is a lethal injection(to kill Big Jack without causing him any un-necessary suffering, similar to the dynamite) and a bone saw to excavate him from the hole but no dynamite whatsoever.

Better sir?

---------- Post added 04-24-2010 at 01:33 PM ----------

The Cave Explorers (Pyrrho Edition)
--------------------------------------------

"An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Everyone remains relatively calm except for Big Jack who is going on about how he doesn't want to die. You all fan out looking for an escape when "Big Jack" finds a hole. Big Jack, not wanting to die calls out for everyone as bolts for the hole. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out.

The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a lethal injection of Potassium Chloride and a bone saw. The saw will not cut the rock, but will certainly cut through Big Jack clearing the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions.


Should you inject Big Jack?

If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?"

Not what I wrote about your argument being weak, what I wrote in response to your question about how we should value human life.

If a driver is found to be reckless and kills other people in an accident, the driver is held responsible for their deaths, even though the driver never intended to kill anyone. Jack, too, should be held responsible for his reckless behavior. Jack is no innocent bystander in this, as he is the one who has blocked the hole. Killing Jack is not killing an innocent person. Killing Jack is preventing a reckless person from killing five other people.

See the thing is I don't think a driver who is negligent or does something on accident can be sentenced to death. Life in prison maybe, and I'm not even sure about that, but I'm pretty sure an accidental death case cannot receive the death penalty.

Most States do that have a death penalty anyway. But capital punishment is, nowadays, reserved for premeditated murder. So, that's right. But there is such a thing as, for example, negligent homicide. And the punishment for that is pretty severe.