Moral dilemma on the 4th of July (hypothetical)...

[Darth Wong]

All things are relative Mike. I would probably kill someone in cold blood to save my family from being murdered.

But you wouldn't compel someone to do some work that he doesn't want to do in order to save a human life, even though no one has to die?

[Alyeska]

Compel, no. I wouldn't force him to do it (unless a family member was afflicted, but thats another issue). I would try and persuade him, but I wouldn't outright force him into it.

[Darth Wong]

Compel, no. I wouldn't force him to do it (unless a family member was afflicted, but thats another issue). I would try and persuade him, but I wouldn't outright force him into it.

So in other words, you put "freedom" above other peoples' lives, but you're actually full of shit when you say that you value freedom above life.

[Alyeska]

Compel, no. I wouldn't force him to do it (unless a family member was afflicted, but thats another issue). I would try and persuade him, but I wouldn't outright force him into it.

So in other words, you put "freedom" above other peoples' lives, but you're actually full of shit when you say that you value freedom above life.

There is a limit. In the 5th of July thread I pointed out I would sacrafice someone to save the universe. At the scale given in this thread I would not force the person to do anything. And in reality this basic example is faced in the real world commonly. A relatively simple comparison is pharmacy companies not offering their life saving medications to countries and people who can't afford it. We don't hold them responsible even though they could do massive good by offering their product to the people in need and it would save countless lives. Why would you hold this one doctor in the OP responsible?

[Darth Wong]

There is a limit. In the 5th of July thread I pointed out I would sacrafice someone to save the universe. At the scale given in this thread I would not force the person to do anything.

So you feel that someone's right to be lazy and apathetic is a sufficiently important "freedom" that human life should be sacrificed for it?

And in reality this basic example is faced in the real world commonly. A relatively simple comparison is pharmacy companies not offering their life saving medications to countries and people who can't afford it. We don't hold them responsible even though they could do massive good by offering their product to the people in need and it would save countless lives.

That's because they would go bankrupt if they gave away that much medicine for free. But actually, I do support mandatory price controls on drugs to limit drug-company gouging. Lots of countries do, in fact. You live in one of the very few countries which seems to recognize a drug company's "right to gouge" as a fundamental liberty.

Why would you hold this one doctor in the OP responsible?

For the same reason that I would force drug companies to adhere to price limits, which will both make drugs more affordable for people and make them easier to offer for foreign-aid medical workers in third-world countries.

[Alyeska]

So you feel that someone's right to be lazy and apathetic is a sufficiently important "freedom" that human life should be sacrificed for it?

I think you might want to add greed to that list bassed on your following statements. Anyway your wording indicates the lazy person is the cause of the death. Lives wouldn't be sacraficed, though they would be needlessly lost. And consider greed. Companies that directly profit from or create things which could save lives, you think prices should be set to help save lives. What about rich people? They have money to spare and surely taking large sums of it and buying needed medication could save countless lives. As I've said before you eventualy come to a line on where you stop and where you start on the issue of freedom vs life. I don't know where your line stands, though you have a good indication of where mine is.

That's because they would go bankrupt if they gave away that much medicine for free. But actually, I do support mandatory price controls on drugs to limit drug-company gouging. Lots of countries do, in fact. You live in one of the very few countries which seems to recognize a drug company's "right to gouge" as a fundamental liberty.

I would argue that a company that sold generic brand medication at lower costs in developing nations and made this public knowledge could reap profits from public good will. Anyway, as you mentioned the prices are related to profits and staying in business. Though the current prices aren't always as fair as the drug companies like to admit because they are intentionaly taking advantage of pattents because they have a monopoly on their drug for several years. When generics enter the market prices become much more reasonable.

For the same reason that I would force drug companies to adhere to price limits, which will both make drugs more affordable for people and make them easier to offer for foreign-aid medical workers in third-world countries.

Easiest way to solve the problem for the US is do away with the patents on drugs. Its actualy the biggest cause of the problem. Drug company makes wonder drug, gets limited pattent. As the time runs out they spend absurd amounts of money to slightly alter the drug and get a new pattent and call this new and improved. They use constant R&D costs to continualy gouge on prices and its the pattents that both encourage and allow them to do this. At least in the US.

[Patrick Degan]

So... from what I read here, Alyeska, it seems you are quite comfortable with letting people die in the name of a philosophical abstraction.

We all are. I don't hear about people donating most of their earnings to charities to save lives in depressing third world countries. Sure some of us might make a small donation from time to time, but thats it.

Um, wrong. The two situations are not remotely comparable. It's already been pointed out that the problems faced by third world nations go far beyond amelioration by sending a few care-packages, and the perceived lack of people moving to do so is not a philosophical abstraction by any stretch of the definition but can be pinned down in most cases to simple lack of spare funds to be able to make even a token contribution. However, this is beside the point, particularly as this attempted equation of yours does not bear on the dilemma being examined in this discussion.

And I'm afraid that little soap-box rant of yours about "freedom/liberty" doesn't impress me as an argument either. It is a direct statement that a philosophical abstraction is to be valued higher than human lives which are in immediate danger save for the procedure which Person X can perform but refuses to do so and for no better reason than "he doesn't want to". Under the conditions outlined in the OP, "he doens't want to" is not a valid reason for not acting. It would be the same thing as if he were in a lifeboat off a sunken ship and refused to pull anybody else from the water for no better reason than "he doesn't want to". Trying to lay a smokescreen of abstractions to cover this up doesn't erase the central fact of the matter.

I am also constrained to point out that in several philosophical statements rating the fundamental rights of man —including those promulgated by Jefferson and Locke— Life takes first seat over Liberty, and not the other way around.

[Alyeska]

Your raise some valid points and the examples you gave is forcing me to reconsider. I hadn't seen some of those parallels before.