# The Covenience Machine



## Jim Johnston

What if someone invented a machine -- call it, The Covenience Machine -- that saved us all a lot of time and made our lives generally much easier had we not had The Covenience Machine. The only drawback, says the inventor, is that it would cost about 75,000 American lives (though they were dedicated to making it safer) per year, and contribute to environmental distress (though they were working on making it safer here too).

How many of you would vote to have The Covenience Machine?


----------



## Cheshire Cat

I would say no, but I might answer yes depending on the context. It depends on who the 75,000 Americans are, and in what manner they die. Are they normal healthy citizens? Considerations like that. It also depends on what ways the convenience machine makes life more convenient. It obviously doesn't make life more convenient for the 75,000 who die!


----------



## panta dokimazete

This is the automobile, right?


----------



## RamistThomist

No, but I had another reason against it before I saw "the cost." Me personally, I grow lazy, weak, sinful, and overall worthless when things are convenient. But in the midst of spiritual battle (and sometimes physical conflict, ideological conflict) I thrive (usually). 

A convenience machine would make me little better than those in Huxley's _Brave New World._


----------



## RamistThomist

jdlongmire said:


> This is the automobile, right?



Wow, I narrowly missed a nasty wreck about 45 minutes ago! At best I would have lost my arm (or at least had my shoulder crushed).


----------



## VictorBravo

caleb_woodrow said:


> I would say no, but I might answer yes depending on the context. It depends on who the 75,000 Americans are, and in what manner they die. Are they normal healthy citizens? Considerations like that. It also depends on what ways the convenience machine makes life more convenient. It obviously doesn't make life more convenient for the 75,000 who die!




 If the convenience machine is a means of execution and the 75,000 Americans are justly condemned murderers, then it probably would be a good thing. I wasn't assuming this, though.


----------



## VictorBravo

Spear Dane said:


> No, but I had another reason against it before I saw "the cost." Me personally, I grow lazy, weak, sinful, and overall worthless when things are convenient. But in the midst of spiritual battle (and sometimes physical conflict, ideological conflict) I thrive (usually).
> 
> A convenience machine would make me little better than those in Huxley's _Brave New World._



I'm pretty much in this camp. I got often go out of my way to lead an inconvenient life.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Spear Dane said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the automobile, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I narrowly missed a nasty wreck about 45 minutes ago! At best I would have lost my arm (or at least had my shoulder crushed).
Click to expand...


Well, praise God, you are ok!


----------



## Jim Johnston

caleb_woodrow said:


> I would say no, but I might answer yes depending on the context. It depends on who the 75,000 Americans are, and in what manner they die. Are they normal healthy citizens? Considerations like that. It also depends on what ways the convenience machine makes life more convenient. It obviously doesn't make life more convenient for the 75,000 who die!



About those who die: it's somewhat random. Criminals on the lam may be killed, business men, little children, housewives, etc.

It allows you to get two and from work in 10 second rather than 45 minutes. Or, if you landed a top job 2 states over you could get there and back home by supper every day. it allows you to move your friends entire house in one trip as opposed to 10. It allows you more mobility. You could take your kids to Australia for the weekend, rather than the local fair, etc. That kind of convenience.

(And, what if they were all elderly people on their way out? They didn't have much life left, and they weren't in the greatest of health. Would that matter?)


----------



## panta dokimazete

Tom Bombadil said:


> caleb_woodrow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say no, but I might answer yes depending on the context. It depends on who the 75,000 Americans are, and in what manner they die. Are they normal healthy citizens? Considerations like that. It also depends on what ways the convenience machine makes life more convenient. It obviously doesn't make life more convenient for the 75,000 who die!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About those who die: it's somewhat random. Criminals on the lam may be killed, business men, little children, housewives, etc.
> 
> It allows you to get two and from work in 10 second rather than 45 minutes. Or, if you landed a top job 2 states over you could get there and back home by supper every day. it allows you to move your friends entire house in one trip as opposed to 10. It allows you more mobility. You could take your kids to Australia for the weekend, rather than the local fair, etc. That kind of convenience.
Click to expand...


hmmm - tempting...so how many people would actually use this machine per year?


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caleb_woodrow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say no, but I might answer yes depending on the context. It depends on who the 75,000 Americans are, and in what manner they die. Are they normal healthy citizens? Considerations like that. It also depends on what ways the convenience machine makes life more convenient. It obviously doesn't make life more convenient for the 75,000 who die!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About those who die: it's somewhat random. Criminals on the lam may be killed, business men, little children, housewives, etc.
> 
> It allows you to get two and from work in 10 second rather than 45 minutes. Or, if you landed a top job 2 states over you could get there and back home by supper every day. it allows you to move your friends entire house in one trip as opposed to 10. It allows you more mobility. You could take your kids to Australia for the weekend, rather than the local fair, etc. That kind of convenience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hmmm - tempting...so how many people would actually use this machine per year?
Click to expand...


If we voted it in, millions.


----------



## VictorBravo

Tom Bombadil said:


> caleb_woodrow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say no, but I might answer yes depending on the context. It depends on who the 75,000 Americans are, and in what manner they die. Are they normal healthy citizens? Considerations like that. It also depends on what ways the convenience machine makes life more convenient. It obviously doesn't make life more convenient for the 75,000 who die!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About those who die: it's somewhat random. Criminals on the lam may be killed, business men, little children, housewives, etc.
> 
> It allows you to get two and from work in 10 second rather than 45 minutes. Or, if you landed a top job 2 states over you could get there and back home by supper every day. it allows you to move your friends entire house in one trip as opposed to 10. It allows you more mobility. You could take your kids to Australia for the weekend, rather than the local fair, etc. That kind of convenience.
> 
> (And, what if they were all elderly people on their way out? They didn't have much life left, and they weren't in the greatest of health. Would that matter?)
Click to expand...


Sounds like the Star Trek transporter prototype. No, if it results in random deaths, I maintain the no vote. If the risk is on the adventursome first adopters, no problem.

The key is assumption of known (or guessed at) risks. That's why the auto example would be acceptable and this proposal would not be.


----------



## Theoretical

victorbravo said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but I had another reason against it before I saw "the cost." Me personally, I grow lazy, weak, sinful, and overall worthless when things are convenient. But in the midst of spiritual battle (and sometimes physical conflict, ideological conflict) I thrive (usually).
> 
> A convenience machine would make me little better than those in Huxley's _Brave New World._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty much in this camp. I got often go out of my way to lead an inconvenient life.
Click to expand...



Convenience is something I've been extremely grateful NOT to have on numerous occasions. It is often a curse as much as it is a blessing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I guess I voted the lone yes so far.

I already voted yes several times by buying several automobiles.

HYPOCRITES!


----------



## panta dokimazete

so - 7.5 million users per year would total a death percentage of 1% - that's actually a pretty high safety record for a travel machine of any sort...


----------



## panta dokimazete

SemperFideles said:


> I guess I voted the lone yes so far.
> 
> I already voted yes several times by buying several automobiles.
> 
> HYPOCRITES!



yeah, I went with my gut, initially instead of weighing the analysis as I am doing now.

Oh, Mighty SysAdmin, hath thou the power to changeth mine vote to "Yea, verily"?


----------



## Jim Johnston

victorbravo said:


> The key is assumption of known (or guessed at) risks. That's why the auto example would be acceptable and this proposal would not be.



Say that tested it in Russia for the past 10 years. They don't _know_ how many deaths it would produce, but 75,000 was an average. The intention isn't to kill, it is an unintended by-product. They _do know_ that deaths will occur, roughly 75,000, but it could be 65,000 one year. And, as I said, they're dedicated to making it safer.

They put it up for a vote here, which way would you go?


----------



## panta dokimazete

and Herr Bombadil - you voted yet?


----------



## Jim Johnston

For the yes votes, (a) what moral justification is there; (b) is convenience more important than human life? Just how important is human life?; (c) since it is highly analogous to automobiles, why the initial reaction of all no votes? It seems that we intuit that human life is more valuable than our convenience, but then we changed when we found out it could be our car. Why?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

J.D.,

Fixed it.

Again, I think it would depend on the benefits offered too. Automobiles are a good example because they don't cause accidents by design but a variety of factors do.

I have a feeling that most Americans might vote No unless it was something they were in control of. That is to say, that if it was a hover craft and they got to fly it, they'd be willing to put up with the deaths because they would feel like they were in control.

When people are not in control, they actually take more notice of the deaths that is caused by a thing and focus on the fact that a convenience brings about unintended death rather than focusing on all the other things it brings.

If you only factored in the deaths that a convenience brought, you would never use something like that. Think, however, of the quality of life improvements that roads and quick transportation has brought. If you need a reminder of that then try visiting Bangladesh right now. We're actually in the middle of figuring out how we're going to help them if the government asks for help. Getting medicine or doctors to some places is going to be hard because of all the unimproved roads they have.

Anyway, I'd have to know what this thing was. If it was a transporter and you had a 1% chance of being completely scrambled by it even though you got across the world in 10 minutes then it wouldn't be a very popular means of mass transit but, in emergencies, you'd always take the risk because if you could get an accident victim from the scene of an accident to an ER in an instant you would always take the chance of using the transporter because you could save his life by getting him on the operating table within the "golden hour".

Of course, if he got scrambled then his family would sue and lawyers would make much of the dangers, ignoring the larger statistical danger.


----------



## VictorBravo

Tom Bombadil said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key is assumption of known (or guessed at) risks. That's why the auto example would be acceptable and this proposal would not be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say that tested it in Russia for the past 10 years. They don't _know_ how many deaths it would produce, but 75,000 was an average. The intention isn't to kill, it is an unintended by-product. They _do know_ that deaths will occur, roughly 75,000, but it could be 65,000 one year. And, as I said, they're dedicated to making it safer.
> 
> They put it up for a vote here, which way would you go?
Click to expand...


I'd still vote no. NONONONO. It's socialism, I tell you. What business do we have voting on such things anyway?????

Edited to add: BTW, I voted no on mass transit too in the last election. For the same reason.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

If the convenience machine would allow me to 

1. transport into Tom Bombadil's living room
2. sneak up behind him
3. put him in a blood choke to render him unconscious
4. write with indellible marker on his face
5. give him a wet willy
6. transport back out before he came to and got his gun

Then I would definitely vote yes.


----------



## Jim Johnston

SemperFideles said:


> J.D.,
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'd have to know what this thing was. If it was a transporter and you had a 1% chance of being completely scrambled by it even though you got across the world in 10 minutes then it wouldn't be a very popular means of mass transit but, in emergencies, you'd always take the risk because if you could get an accident victim from the scene of an accident to an ER in an instant you would always take the chance of using the transporter because you could save his life by getting him on the operating table within the "golden hour".
> 
> Of course, if he got scrambled then his family would sue and lawyers would make much of the dangers, ignoring the larger statistical danger.



Transporting while under the influence - TUI.


----------



## VictorBravo

Tom Bombadil said:


> For the yes votes, (a) what moral justification is there; (b) is convenience more important than human life? Just how important is human life?; (c) since it is highly analogous to automobiles, why the initial reaction of all no votes? It seems that we intuit that human life is more valuable than our convenience, but then we changed when we found out it could be our car. Why?




This has been a pretty good provoker, TB. I think the problem I have with the scenario (as I subtly hinted at in my socialism post) is the idea of a collective vote on collective risk. We are quite used to evaluating and taking individual risks. Those are personal decisions. Sometimes, *providentially*, those risks result in death.

But voting on it assumes that the collective will has the authority to impose this risk on those who may not individually want to assume it. It assumes the role of providence.

I think that is what drives the intuitive no vote and why we can justify driving our cars.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Tom Bombadil said:


> For the yes votes, (a) what moral justification is there;



The same moral justification we tacitly utilize every time we use a car, get a flu vaccination, flip a power switch, etc... 





> (b) is convenience more important than human life?



I think you are leaving out a significant metric - how many human lives would be *saved* by this ability to rapidly transport? Think of the stroke and heart attack victims alone and you start to see a positive return.




> Just how important is human life?



hmm - an important moral question - I may answer this later... 



> (c) since it is highly analogous to automobiles, why the initial reaction of all no votes? It seems that we intuit that human life is more valuable than our convenience, but then we changed when we found out it could be our car. Why?



Again - I look at the potentially overbalancing metric - how many people are saved each year by the first responder enabled by this "convenience machine"?


----------



## Jim Johnston

SemperFideles said:


> If the convenience machine would allow me to
> 
> 1. transport into Tom Bombadil's living room
> 2. sneak up behind him
> 3. put him in a blood choke to render him unconscious
> 4. write with indellible marker on his face
> 5. give him a wet willy
> 6. transport back out before he came to and got his gun
> 
> Then I would definitely vote yes.


----------



## panta dokimazete




----------



## panta dokimazete

Bottom line, it is all about risk vs. reward...


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> Bottom line, it is all about risk vs. reward...




what kind of ethic is that? What's the name?

Are there any intrinsic evils/goods?

What of the abortionist and euthenasists arguments?

What if the majority understood the risks - some possible misdiagnosis, etc - and voted for convenience?

What's the risk vs, reward?

What device do we use to measure risk vs. reward?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

SemperFideles said:


> Of course, if he got scrambled then his family would sue and lawyers would make much of the dangers, ignoring the larger statistical danger.



Reminds me of Stephen King's _The Jaunt_; Michael Crichton's _Timeline_; _Star Trek: The Next Generation_ -- _Realm of Fear_; and other such stories.


----------



## BrianLanier

Paul,

1) Are the deaths: a) due to *voluntary use* of the CM after it is made, or b) are they required to *make* the CM?

2) If (a), then I vote yes. If ~(a), then no.

3) If (b), then a follow up question, (b'): are the deaths required to make the CM from *voluntary* employment in a free market with *full* discloser of the risks of employment?

4) If (b'), then I vote yes. If ~(b'), then no.


----------



## BrianLanier

P.S. I thought you had biggers "guns"


----------



## reformedcop

Tom Bombadil said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the convenience machine would allow me to
> 
> 1. transport into Tom Bombadil's living room
> 2. sneak up behind him
> 3. put him in a blood choke to render him unconscious
> 4. write with indellible marker on his face
> 5. give him a wet willy
> 6. transport back out before he came to and got his gun
> 
> Then I would definitely vote yes.
Click to expand...


My first thought ... "Are you on parole or probation?"

Second thought was ... "Nice selection of books, oooh theres Berkhof's Systmatic Theology!"

Third thought ... "Oh Wow he's has a shotgun!"


----------



## Jim Johnston

BrianLanier said:


> P.S. I thought you had biggers "guns"



that was when I was out of shape!

SEE!







It's an up and down battle.


----------



## Jim Johnston

reformedcop said:


> My first thought ... "Are you on parole or probation?"
> 
> Second thought was ... "Nice selection of books, oooh theres Berkhof's Systmatic Theology!"
> 
> Third thought ... "Oh Wow he's has a shotgun!"



1. Not anymore!

2. Thanks.

3. Remington 870 Magnum


----------



## Jim Johnston

BrianLanier said:


> Paul,
> 
> 1) Are the deaths: a) due to *voluntary use* of the CM after it is made, or b) are they required to *make* the CM?
> 
> 2) If (a), then I vote yes. If ~(a), then no.
> 
> 3) If (b), then a follow up question, (b'): are the deaths required to make the CM from *voluntary* employment in a free market with *full* discloser of the risks of employment?
> 
> 4) If (b'), then I vote yes. If ~(b'), then no.




It's pretty much the same as the automobile.

The main point isn't to get peoples votes. The main point is to discuss the underlying moral assumptions. See if they stand. See what can be learned. See how our attitude or character should change.


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the yes votes, (a) what moral justification is there;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same moral justification we tacitly utilize every time we use a car
Click to expand...

What's that?





> I think you are leaving out a significant metric - how many human lives would be *saved* by this ability to rapidly transport? Think of the stroke and heart attack victims alone and you start to see a positive return.



When making ethical decisions, gathering the facts is important. Have you gathered the facts? How many are saved, how many are dead?

Another is looking at alternatives:

Maybe just first responders should drive?

Maybe all our cars should be made to fo 300 mph. Save more lives.

Maybe everyone should go through medical training and have some basics on hand so they can sustain life until the paramedics could arive?



> Again - I look at the potentially overbalancing metric - how many people are saved each year by the first responder enabled by this "convenience machine"?



How many people have you saved?

Aren't we really saying that our convenience is more important that human lives? Get enough people to agree, and live with the side effects. Is this like the social contract theory of ethics?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Tom Bombadil said:


> what kind of ethic is that? What's the name?



Not sure what you are asking? Situational?



> Are there any intrinsic evils/goods?



Certainly - why do you ask?



> What of the abortionist and euthenasists arguments?
> 
> What if the majority understood the risks - some possible misdiagnosis, etc - and voted for convenience?



Who's convenience? Certainly not the baby's or the old person's...



> What's the risk vs, reward?



I don't think your analogy works, senor Tom.



> What device do we use to measure risk vs. reward?



depends on what the risk and reward is - I'd say morality as the default.


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kind of ethic is that? What's the name?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you are asking? Situational?
Click to expand...


'cause we're asking questions about moral judgments. One needs ethical theories in terms of which they justify moral judgments.



> Certainly - why do you ask?



Because convenience and reward can't remove an intrinsic evil.



> Who's convenience? Certainly not the baby's or the old person's...



Certainly not the 5 yr. old who is hit while chasing his ball.



> I don't think your analogy works, senor Tom.



Just asking you to justify your belief. You originally voted no. So you prima facie don't think convenience outweighs human life. I voted yes, so I agree with you. Just seeking moral justification.



> depends on what the risk and reward is - I'd say morality as the default.



I don't get that. Re-phrase.


----------



## reformedcop

If its analagous to the automobile, should we take into account that a vast majority of automobile related deaths have little or nothing to do with the automobile and everything to do with the "human factor"?

So, will the deaths occur just by using the machine? Or will the deaths be because of operator error when using the machine? If its the former then I vote no.


----------



## panta dokimazete

jdlongmire said:


> The same moral justification we tacitly utilize every time we use a car





TB said:


> What's that?



That the risk of driving the car and supporting the automobile industry is worth the benefits we receive.



JD said:


> I think you are leaving out a significant metric - how many human lives would be *saved* by this ability to rapidly transport? Think of the stroke and heart attack victims alone and you start to see a positive return.





> When making ethical decisions, gathering the facts is important. Have you gathered the facts? How many are saved, how many are dead?



You are making the hypothetical - make up a number and we can determine the risk v reward. Objective metrics help make the case.



TB said:


> Another is looking at alternatives:
> 
> Maybe just first responders should drive?



Sure - and your entire economy goes down the drain - you also potentially begin to starve the populace. Think about the quantity of ground transport of goods every day...they don't grow the groceries *at* the store... 




> Maybe all our cars should be made to fo 300 mph. Save more lives.



nope - you begin to invoke the law of diminishing returns - now if you could make it as safe to drive 300 as you can 65...then the metric is zero net.



TB said:


> Maybe everyone should go through medical training and have some basics on hand so they can sustain life until the paramedics could arive?



not a bad idea - can you imagine the level of effort and cost to do that? again - balance the effort by the return - goes back to how valuable an individual life is...



JD said:


> Again - I look at the potentially overbalancing metric - how many people are saved each year by the first responder enabled by this "convenience machine"?





> How many people have you saved?



I dunno - I helped get the communication network up after Katrina - never thought about what that measured in terms of lives saved. I've also helped at the scene of several auto accidents...



> Aren't we really saying that our convenience is more important that human lives? Get enough people to agree, and live with the side effects. Is this like the social contract theory of ethics?



To some degree - but you and I, as Christians, would drive the risk v reward metric based on our morality vs. the atheist that could only appeal to the statistics.

Basically what happens today...


----------



## Jim Johnston

reformedcop said:


> If its analagous to the automobile, should we take into account that a vast majority of automobile related deaths have little or nothing to do with the automobile and everything to do with the "human factor"?
> 
> So, will the deaths occur just by using the machine? Or will the deaths be because of operator error when using the machine? If its the former then I vote no.




*Some* deaths occur due to "just using" the machine itself, as well as the weather, and other factors

But, yes, the vast majority would be due to the "human factor."


----------



## VictorBravo

I'm in the middle of a class right now otherwise I'd love to jump in some more. But I think trying to analyze by analogizing to vaccines, Katrina, etc, is misplaced. Those fall into the category of either emergency or protection of life--same reason war can be justified. Not so for convenience. If you introduce emergency analysis into ethics as a general rule, it usually messes things up. 

It boils down to convenience of the many trumps the life rights of the few--which is exactly the argument used by many in support of abortion.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Tom Bombadil said:


>



Dude, you are holding my Mossberg, right? What did you do with the heat shield!

[doctored audio clip of Mel Gibson]GIVE ME BACK MY GUN![/clip]


----------



## panta dokimazete

Tom Bombadil said:


> what kind of ethic is that? What's the name?





JD said:


> Not sure what you are asking? Situational?





TB said:


> 'cause we're asking questions about moral judgments. One needs ethical theories in terms of which they justify moral judgments.



Not intimate with ethical theory - I'd say mine are Biblical ethics.



TB said:


> Because convenience and reward can't remove an intrinsic evil.



Is death intrinsically evil?



TB said:


> Certainly not the 5 yr. old who is hit while chasing his ball.



So where do you draw the line? How many 5 year olds benefit from being able to go to school in a bus?



JD said:


> I don't think your analogy works, senor Tom.





TB said:


> Just asking you to justify your belief. You originally voted no. So you prima facie don't think convenience outweighs human life. I voted yes, so I agree with you. Just seeking moral justification.



Again - I first went with my "gut" - my default moral position is: preventable death is preferable to convenience - however, once I began to rationalize potential scenarios and began to quantify the hypothetical rewards associated with the "convenience", I began to realize that the risk-reward metric may be more complex than my knee-jerk reaction. It's all about context. 



JD said:


> depends on what the risk and reward is - I'd say morality as the default.





TB said:


> I don't get that. Re-phrase.



Depending upon the risk-reward situation - morality would be the default position - if the moral risk-reward is null or not applicable, then the determining factor could be several - return on investment, customer satisfaction, etc...

at the risk of being perceived as repetitive...It's all about context.


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> That the risk of driving the car and supporting the automobile industry is worth the benefits we receive.



I've never heard that ethical theory. Why does that make this moral?



> You are making the hypothetical - make up a number and we can determine the risk v reward. Objective metrics help make the case.



With you I was specifically talking about cars, a non-hypothetical. I used the hypothetical to draw out some initial responses.



> Sure - and your entire economy goes down the drain - you also potentially begin to starve the populace. Think about the quantity of ground transport of goods every day...they don't grow the groceries *at* the store...



Yeah, sometimes it's a tough road to toe to do the moral thing. What if an economy was built on raping and pillaging other countries. A moral refomer comes along and tells them to stop. They think the benefits worth the risk. But besides that, they tell the reformer, "Yeah, sure, and have our entire economy go down the drain." You're not giving a moral justification. 

And, perhaps we can grow our own food. Sure, it'll be hard. But then, 75,000 lives will be saved. Maybe they'll have to go without brand new Nikes because our economy went down the drain, but hey, they'd be alive.

Or, say that we could go back in time. Knowing what we know now, why not lobby against gthe automobile? At that time the economy wasn't bad, and people didn't know about having a Supermarket so they'd not miss much. And, we could still build them, just drive back with horse and wagon?

Have all the alternatives been looked at? Or are we complacent? Do we not want the "inconvenience" of thinking through the issue?



> nope - you begin to invoke the law of diminishing returns - now if you could make it as safe to drive 300 as you can 65...then the metric is zero net.



Maybe more lives would be saved. So say we save 10 people driving 65 while we lose 8. Driving 300 might make us loose 13 but we'd save 15. Have you done the math in order to charge me with violation of diminishing returns? And, how do you judge what was diminished in the 75,000 deaths vs. what we got by getting to go to the store &c.?



> not a bad idea - can you imagine the level of effort and cost to do that? again - balance the effort by the return - goes back to how valuable an individual life is...



Cost vs. human lives? Are you putting a price on the 75,000? Seems like you keep appealing to more convenience to back up your desire to have convenience.






> Aren't we really saying that our convenience is more important that human lives? Get enough people to agree, and live with the side effects. Is this like the social contract theory of ethics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To some degree - but you and I, as Christians, would drive the risk v reward metric based on our morality vs. the atheist that could only appeal to the statistics.
> 
> Basically what happens today...
Click to expand...


Why does the Christian morality say that The Social Contract theory is justified? Where does The Christian morality say that our convenience is more important that lives?


----------



## BrianLanier

Tom Bombadil said:


> BrianLanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> 1) Are the deaths: a) due to *voluntary use* of the CM after it is made, or b) are they required to *make* the CM?
> 
> 2) If (a), then I vote yes. If ~(a), then no.
> 
> 3) If (b), then a follow up question, (b'): are the deaths required to make the CM from *voluntary* employment in a free market with *full* discloser of the risks of employment?
> 
> 4) If (b'), then I vote yes. If ~(b'), then no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty much the same as the automobile.
> 
> The main point isn't to get peoples votes. The main point is to discuss the underlying moral assumptions. See if they stand. See what can be learned. See how our attitude or character should change.
Click to expand...


I know, but that _was_ your question.


----------



## panta dokimazete

victorbravo said:


> I'm in the middle of a class right now otherwise I'd love to jump in some more. But I think trying to analyze by analogizing to vaccines, Katrina, etc, is misplaced. Those fall into the category of either emergency or protection of life--same reason war can be justified. Not so for convenience. If you introduce emergency analysis into ethics as a general rule, it usually messes things up.
> 
> It boils down to convenience of the many trumps the life rights of the few--which is exactly the argument used by many in support of abortion.



Yah - I think where the analogy breaks here is that the "convenience machine" as Tom has defined it has much more potential benefit factors than just "convenience". We all know that the convenience factor of abortion is *HIGH*, while the benefit factor is *LOW*, thus driving a moral decision that the risk is much greater than the reward.


----------



## Jim Johnston

BrianLanier said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrianLanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> 1) Are the deaths: a) due to *voluntary use* of the CM after it is made, or b) are they required to *make* the CM?
> 
> 2) If (a), then I vote yes. If ~(a), then no.
> 
> 3) If (b), then a follow up question, (b'): are the deaths required to make the CM from *voluntary* employment in a free market with *full* discloser of the risks of employment?
> 
> 4) If (b'), then I vote yes. If ~(b'), then no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty much the same as the automobile.
> 
> The main point isn't to get peoples votes. The main point is to discuss the underlying moral assumptions. See if they stand. See what can be learned. See how our attitude or character should change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, but that _was_ your question.
Click to expand...


It was, but the_ context of this thread_ brought out that there was much more to it than that


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I went ahead and voted "no", even knowing all the discussion gone on.

Why?
1) Honesty. I'm inherently conservative, and would likely be one of those who (having advance knowledge of a whopping hazard) would voluntarily avoid it as too risky. This would mean I also understood the word "vote" as a "personal choice" to involve myself or not in the risky behavior. But also, adding information (such as showing actual likelihood of 1 injury per X usages) would affect my perception of the risk, and lower my resistance to personal involvement.

2) The voting thing. The way the question was first framed, I'd have thought I was imposing an unwanted risk on those 75,000 people. However, if we find that the 75,000 are only a fraction of 7,500,000 voluntary participants, then "voting" on voluntary association still seems flawed to me. But if it is simply the affirmation of preexisting property rights, then I would change and vote "yes".

So, at heart, I do not place the "absolute value" of life ahead of "convenience", because the two are not predicable on a linear scale. The relationships between the concepts are multidimensional, and are subject to wild skewing of the data apart from other necessary concepts such as "liberty" and "property"


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> Not intimate with ethical theory - I'd say mine are Biblical ethics.



Okay... never read which chapter this was addressed in.





> Is death intrinsically evil?



That's my belief.



> So where do you draw the line? How many 5 year olds benefit from being able to go to school in a bus?



How many familes benefit economically from their dead Grandmother's will. They could do so much good. Give millions to charity, but, alas, she's a tough old crone, and she's gonna hang on, in a delirious state, for the next 15 years.

And, you're not looking at all the altneratives. Why not home shcool? How many children are spiritually and mentally messed up from the education received in the American public school system?

The question isn't as easy as you're trying to make it.




> Again - I first went with my "gut" - my default moral position is: preventable death is preferable to convenience - however, once I began to rationalize potential scenarios and began to quantify the hypothetical rewards associated with the "convenience", I began to realize that the risk-reward metric may be more complex than my knee-jerk reaction. It's all about context.



I've only heard "just so" stories from you and vague appeals to "doing the math" but no hard data. Still seems like you're going with your gut - "It just can't be wrong to drive cars!"



> Depending upon the risk-reward situation - morality would be the default position - if the moral risk-reward is null or not applicable, then the determining factor could be several - return on investment, customer satisfaction, etc...
> 
> at the risk of being perceived as repetitive...It's all about context.



Sounds Utilitarian. A main problem is when doing the math. No one has been able to compute or measure "risk-reward" or "pleasure-pain" scenarios. Do you have a device that does that? Show your work

the harm 75,000 human lives receive

vs.

the economic et al benefits millions receive

= ?


----------



## panta dokimazete

JD said:


> That the risk of driving the car and supporting the automobile industry is worth the benefits we receive.





TB said:


> I've never heard that ethical theory. Why does that make this moral?



I think you are asking - "How does that make this morally acceptable?"

Honestly, what you are asking - if you are asking for a quantification - would take a significant effort to build a comprehensive decision matrix. What I am saying is that you and I - as Christians - have made the determination that driving an automobile is morally acceptable - that the benefits derived are greater to some factor than the morally objectionable factors.


TB said:


> Yeah, sometimes it's a tough road to toe to do the moral thing. What if an economy was built on raping and pillaging other countries. A moral refomer comes along and tells them to stop. They think the benefits worth the risk. But besides that, they tell the reformer, "Yeah, sure, and have our entire economy go down the drain." You're not giving a moral justification.



Sure I am - "they" reject the moral implication, I don't - raping and pillaging are not morally acceptable. 



TB said:


> And, perhaps we can grow our own food. Sure, it'll be hard. But then, 75,000 lives will be saved. Maybe they'll have to go without brand new Nikes because our economy went down the drain, but hey, they'd be alive.



Again, is death inherently evil?



> Or, say that we could go back in time. Knowing what we know now, why not lobby against gthe automobile? At that time the economy wasn't bad, and people didn't know about having a Supermarket so they'd not miss much. And, we could still build them, just drive back with horse and wagon?



so...now we are moving into the realm of alternate history? are you trying to collaborate on some historical fiction?  (BTW - I reject the many world hypothesis and time travel.)



> Have all the alternatives been looked at?


 more than likely not, but there is the risk of "analysis paralysis" - that is a decision driver, too.



> Or are we complacent?


 Probably, in some instances. 



> Do we not want the "inconvenience" of thinking through the issue?


 Again, probably, in some instances - you are speaking in sweeping generalities. 



> Maybe more lives would be saved. So say we save 10 people driving 65 while we lose 8. Driving 300 might make us loose 13 but we'd save 15. Have you done the math in order to charge me with violation of diminishing returns? And, how do you judge what was diminished in the 75,000 deaths vs. what we got by getting to go to the store &c.?



Again - you make sweeping generalities for a hypothetical situation. Quantify the factors some more and we can discuss the law of diminishing returns. We both know that at some point the objective only helps quantify while morality helps qualify.



TB said:


> Cost vs. human lives? Are you putting a price on the 75,000? Seems like you keep appealing to more convenience to back up your desire to have convenience. Aren't we really saying that our convenience is more important that human lives? Get enough people to agree, and live with the side effects. Is this like the social contract theory of ethics?



So - are you saying no convenience, without exception, is worth even 1 human life? I'd agree if there is no other derivative than convenience as the determining factor.

For example - if it could be conclusively proven that lip balm would cause the death of one human being, I'd vote NAY, based on my moral understanding of benefit vs cost.





JD said:


> To some degree - but you and I, as Christians, would drive the risk v reward metric based on our morality vs. the atheist that could only appeal to the statistics.
> 
> Basically what happens today...





> Why does the Christian morality say that The Social Contract theory is justified? Where does The Christian morality say that our convenience is more important that lives?



define convenience.


----------



## panta dokimazete

jdlongmire said:


> Not intimate with ethical theory - I'd say mine are Biblical ethics.





TB said:


> Okay... never read which chapter this was addressed in.



? 

ethics = the study of values - good and bad, right and wrong

Am I misunderstanding? I'd say the Bible from front to back is an ethics guide.



JD said:


> Is death intrinsically evil?





TB said:


> That's my belief.



Not mine - don't suppose you'd like to back that up with some Scripture? Seeking to understand...



> How many familes benefit economically from their dead Grandmother's will. They could do so much good. Give millions to charity, but, alas, she's a tough old crone, and she's gonna hang on, in a delirious state, for the next 15 years.



...and our default moral guidance, as Christians, is "NAY". Who are we to judge the length of life or activities that "could be"?



> And, you're not looking at all the altneratives. Why not home shcool? How many children are spiritually and mentally messed up from the education received in the American public school system?



And how many have come out just fine? How else will our children understand how to be "in the world, but not of the world" and "lights in the darkness"?



> The question isn't as easy as you're trying to make it.



Not trying to make it easy - just dealing with the implications.



JD said:


> Again - I first went with my "gut" - my default moral position is: preventable death is preferable to convenience - however, once I began to rationalize potential scenarios and began to quantify the hypothetical rewards associated with the "convenience", I began to realize that the risk-reward metric may be more complex than my knee-jerk reaction. It's all about context.





TB said:


> I've only heard "just so" stories from you and vague appeals to "doing the math" but no hard data. Still seems like you're going with your gut - "It just can't be wrong to drive cars!"



?? I think you are over-simplifying my position. I am proposing that *today* we *both* have made a tacit moral decision (and Tom , I am assuming you do travel by automobile in some capacity) to support the automobile industry - we vote with our feet, if you will. 

If you are suggesting that there is some overwhelming moral rationale we have not considered, I am willing to work it out with you, but I am also saying that the risk-reward matrix will be VERY complex, since we are not just discussing convenience, but true benefit, as well.



JD said:


> Depending upon the risk-reward situation - morality would be the default position - if the moral risk-reward is null or not applicable, then the determining factor could be several - return on investment, customer satisfaction, etc...
> 
> at the risk of being perceived as repetitive...It's all about context.





> Sounds Utilitarian. A main problem is when doing the math. No one has been able to compute or measure "risk-reward" or "pleasure-pain" scenarios. Do you have a device that does that? Show your work
> 
> the harm 75,000 human lives receive
> 
> vs.
> 
> the economic et al benefits millions receive
> 
> = ?



hypothetically?

75k dead because of the technology vs 150k saved because of timely travel = net 75k benefit - a no brainer


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> I went ahead and voted "no", even knowing all the discussion gone on.
> 
> Why?
> 1) Honesty. I'm inherently conservative, and would likely be one of those who (having advance knowledge of a whopping hazard) would voluntarily avoid it as too risky. This would mean I also understood the word "vote" as a "personal choice" to involve myself or not in the risky behavior. But also, adding information (such as showing actual likelihood of 1 injury per X usages) would affect my perception of the risk, and lower my resistance to personal involvement.
> 
> 2) The voting thing. The way the question was first framed, I'd have thought I was imposing an unwanted risk on those 75,000 people. However, if we find that the 75,000 are only a fraction of 7,500,000 voluntary participants, then "voting" on voluntary association still seems flawed to me. But if it is simply the affirmation of preexisting property rights, then I would change and vote "yes".
> 
> So, at heart, I do not place the "absolute value" of life ahead of "convenience", because the two are not predicable on a linear scale. The relationships between the concepts are multidimensional, and are subject to wild skewing of the data apart from other necessary concepts such as "liberty" and "property"



I guess I wasn't thinking in terms of the voting thing but realized that there was some component here that was kind of tricking the mind into first considering against the idea until it weighted all the other factors.

I also wouldn't have phrased the idea simply by calling it a "convenience machine". If the only thing that the machine does is add convenience to an otherwise lazy person's day then any loss of life simply for the sake of convenience is illegitimate.

I started musing on this because I didn't want to get all fuzzy and indeterminate because I know Paul likes to ask a billion questions. I will say that ethics is a matter of prudence or wisdom and that it doesn't always have a quantitative measure.

What I immediately thought of, however, is the Law regarding Oxes and how you've got to destroy your ox if he gores another ox or gores another person and all the liabilities that the Law brings. Thus, from the general equity of the Law, we know that Oxes are not forbidden. It's not as if God is unaware of the dangers of using a large beast on the farm but he doesn't mollycoddle farmers and tell them they're just going to have to do it all by hand because Oxes sometimes kill people.

Oxes, then, aren't just a "convenience device" but they enhance productivity. If someone was only to approach the use of oxes in farming from the danger aspect then you would only focus on the number of children gored by oxes every year and ask the community to vote on whether or not it was worth allowing farmers to use oxes in farming anymore because the cost in human lives is too high. The question about zoning and what you allow in your community is a legitimate use of the vote or the power of the magistrate after all.

Of course, the magistrate would lack wisdom if he only approached the issue like the Sierra Club and saw every machine or animal used for productivity for the harm that it causes unintentionally at times. In fact, that's why the question immediately raises hackles in the poll because it presents the issue the way someone at PETA would like: "Would you torture an animal just for the convenience of a man...." When you peel back the layer a little you find they're talking about animal testing for new drugs to help in medicinal advances.

I guess I'm sensitive to these statistical discussions because my undergrad was in Nuclear Engineering and I've never been more shocked by the blind irrationalism of people when it comes to a technology. One could ask the question: Is it worth killing people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki just so we can power a lightbulb?

Of course that question would be a twisted way of discussing Nuclear Fission and whether or not it has any other uses. There is always going to be an unethical use of something like fissionable material but some people live in abject fear of Nuclear Energy and think that reactors are just like bombs and could devestate an entire community if somebody just slips up a little bit. They also think that any radiation is a bad thing.

One of my professors was lecturing to some New York state representatives about radiation one time. Before the presentation, he had purchased some ceramic plates that were very commonly sold on shelves. Most people don't know that the earth has a natural "background radiation" to it but marble and ceramic are typically more radioactive. Harmlessly so but don't tell that to an irrationally frightened person.

Anyhow, he first held up a vile with black "marble like" glass in it explaining that he was holding some sand that had been glassified by a Nuclear Weapons test a number of years ago. He placed a geiger counter next to it and it started clicking and the needle rose to the quarter mark based on the sensitivity set. Harmless but oh so scary to them. He asked if any would like to hold the bottle. They recoiled in horror. Let the weirdo hold that stuff right?

He then picked up one of the plates that a female State representative (a Democrat) had been eating from and held the geiger counter next to it. The counter went crazy and it pegged the needle. Still harmless but try telling that to the politicians in the room. One of them left the room to go throw up.

The point is that these kinds of questions can never be asked in a way that is not colored by someone's perceptions either rational or irrational. It's also not unrealistic to assume that the issue will be brought to a vote. If there is going to be a nuclear power plant built in a neighborhood you can be certain that a vote is going to be held no matter how "socialist" that sounds. The bottom line is that everyone uses electricity and some kind of plant is going to need to be built.

The interesting thing about human beings though is that they'd rather have a coal burning plant with mounds of coal that are eminating tons of Carbon 14 radiation naturally (and harmlessly) but you're always going to get the abject fear of a Nuclear Power plant that radiates virtually none.

From the standpoint of benefit to the environment, safety, and sustainability, the Nuclear Power plant would win out as the choice every single time but people prefer the things they know and want to die by their own hand rather than a mysterious technology. Because of this, they force power plants to do risk calculations to figure out the likelihood that 100,000 people would be killed by their plant. When the calculations are completed, the risk is akin to being killed by a meteor falling to the earth and hitting you but people say: "See, this thing can kill 100,000 people" because such risk calculations are never performed on the other things we use in daily life.


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> I think you are asking - "How does that make this morally acceptable?"
> 
> Honestly, what you are asking - if you are asking for a quantification - would take a significant effort to build a comprehensive decision matrix. What I am saying is that you and I - as Christians - have made the determination that driving an automobile is morally acceptable - that the benefits derived are greater to some factor than the morally objectionable factors.



_Argumentum ad it'stocomplicatedtoexplainum._




> Sure I am - "they" reject the moral implication, I don't - raping and pillaging are not morally acceptable.



Begging the question. You're assuming letting the 75,00 die is moral. If you don't assume that, then your "our economy will go down the drain argument" won't work.



> Again, is death inherently evil?



Yes. God is the _living_ God. Christ came to beat _death_. Sin brought _death_. God won't annhiliate people, he lets them live forever. Why is death not good? Because you're not _living_. That's just to say, because you're _dead_.



> so...now we are moving into the realm of alternate history? are you trying to collaborate on some historical fiction?  (BTW - I reject the many world hypothesis and time travel.)



That doesn't matter if you reject it. Announcing your rejection isn't a counter argument. And, when debating necessities, like moral truths, thought experiment arguments are valid.



> more than likely not, but there is the risk of "analysis paralysis" - that is a decision driver, too.



Then why have I easily brought up so many. You haven't even thought about this until tonight and you've thought of the majority of alternatives. Excuse me while I take a brak and watch my Loch Ness Monster tapes.



> Again, probably, in some instances - you are speaking in sweeping generalities.



No, speaking to this exact situation which you've not even begun to try to argue for your position.



> Again - you make sweeping generalities for a hypothetical situation. Quantify the factors some more and we can discuss the law of diminishing returns. We both know that at some point the objective only helps quantify while morality helps qualify.



How convenient  You are the one who brought up the calculations, I challeneged you to show them, you can't (and haven't), but now you turn it around on me! You said that X was morally permissable because it yields a higher risk-benefit return. I'm asking you to back up that assertion with the numbers. Then you blame me for the failures of your initial highly generalized moral justification.



> So - are you saying no convenience, without exception, is worth even 1 human life? I'd agree if there is no other derivative than convenience as the determining factor.



I'm not saying anything. I'm trying to get you to give a cogent argument. When I question premises that doesn't mean I disagree with your conclusion per se, it means I disagree with how you're getting there.



> define convenience.



anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort



> ethics = the study of values - good and bad, right and wrong



Axiology is the study of values.

Ethics, technically, refers to the _process of determining_ wright and wrong.

Morality has to do with the _content_ of right and wrong.

And, there's more involved...



> Am I misunderstanding? I'd say the Bible from front to back is an ethics guide.



Okay, so where's your systematic answer to this situation?

If you want a little help, I'd point out that God made rules about livestock killing or injuring persons. Thus we know that things that made life easier, more economically beneficial, etc., were employed in OT Israel. And we know that these things caused the death of some people. So, build your case. I definately don't think the Israelities were proto-Millites, engaging in some form of primative Utilitarian ethic. Cost benefit analysis and all that. 



> Not mine - don't suppose you'd like to back that up with some Scripture? Seeking to understand...



There's no verse. I started to above. It's not natural. It's, well, perhaps Woody Allen can help:

Boris: What is it like being dead?

Vladimir Maximovich: It's like - how can I explain it? You know the boiled chicken at Tresky's restaurant?

Boris: Yeah.

Vladimir Maximovich: It's worse.

Scott B. Rae comments on the poorly stated euphemism, Euthenasia - the "good" death - that it may be a _"...contradiction in terms. Death is the ultimate indignity, coming as a result of sin and the fall of man. The late protestant ethicist Paul Ramsey suggested that death is something wholly alien to humankind, imposed on man as a consequence of sin. He thus rejected any concept of death that is considered natural and part of the normal cycle of life. Since man in Christ is destined for eternal life, Ramsey argued, death is an indignity, inconsistent with man's eternal destiny in Christ."_ 

Thus if "inherent" is "existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element" and death is always and everywhere an evil, a complete antithesis to the Living Lord, and it is this by its nature, then evil is a permanent and inseperable element of death, therefore it is inherently evil.

Man is made in the image of God. God lives. We live.



> ...and our default moral guidance, as Christians, is "NAY". Who are we to judge the length of life or activities that "could be"?



And who are you to judge that someone's life is worth less than your convenience, your economical stability, etc?



> And how many have come out just fine? How else will our children understand how to be "in the world, but not of the world" and "lights in the darkness"?



You're taking claims from a guy who was homeschooled. Jesus never went to Jerusalem Public School. Sounds self-refuting. And, to say "how else will our children learn" is putative to saying "no way else," thus you're implying that only children who go to public school can learn to be salt and light.

Anyway, the point was to show that there was an alternative that could educate the children and save the lives killed by car accidents.

But, if you must keep your schools and my tax dollars, then let them go to public school in horse and buggy! See, another alternative. You should have known I would say that considering that you have thought about "most" of them. 



> ?? I think you are over-simplifying my position. I am proposing that today we both have made a tacit moral decision (and Tom , I am assuming you do travel by automobile in some capacity) to support the automobile industry - we vote with our feet, if you will.
> 
> If you are suggesting that there is some overwhelming moral rationale we have not considered, I am willing to work it out with you, but I am also saying that the risk-reward matrix will be VERY complex, since we are not just discussing convenience, but true benefit, as well.



You're saying that X is more beneficial that Y. I asked you to show me. It's not an oversimplification to call you out on shaky assertions.



> hypothetically?
> 
> 75k dead because of the technology vs 150k saved because of timely travel = net 75k benefit - a no brainer



And this just shows you haven't done much reading in this area. One of the biggest critiques against Utilitarianism isn't going to be solved in a sentence by someone on the PB!

For example, call benefit units _hedons_.

Now, say that 1 death by automobile accident costs 15 hedons (not to mention that family members etc.,). Then, say that the hedons gained by timely travel was 5. The net cost would be more for the deaths.

The problem is that _you don't know how to give rates to these things_.

That was one of the problems in "I Robot." They thought they could calculate these kinds of things.

So, if my assigning of the hedons were correct, the cost-benefit argument would fall on the side of the 75K. That's just being sloppy. Of all the things I could include, there's no way you could calculate this. Bahnsen argues that you'd have to be omniscient!


----------



## Jim Johnston

Would the law of double effect come into play here?

That law states that an unintended but foreseen negative consequence of a speciic action does not necessarily make that action immoral.


----------



## panta dokimazete

JD said:


> Honestly, what you are asking - if you are asking for a quantification - would take a significant effort to build a comprehensive decision matrix.





TB said:


> Argumentum ad it'stocomplicatedtoexplainum.





TB said:


> That was one of the problems in "I Robot." They thought they could calculate these kinds of things.
> 
> So, if my assigning of the hedons were correct, the cost-benefit argument would fall on the side of the 75K. That's just being sloppy. *Of all the things I could include, there's no way you could calculate this*. Bahnsen argues that you'd have to be omniscient!



Aren't you arguing from both sides, now?


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> JD said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, what you are asking - if you are asking for a quantification - would take a significant effort to build a comprehensive decision matrix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad it'stocomplicatedtoexplainum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TB said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was one of the problems in "I Robot." They thought they could calculate these kinds of things.
> 
> So, if my assigning of the hedons were correct, the cost-benefit argument would fall on the side of the 75K. That's just being sloppy. *Of all the things I could include, there's no way you could calculate this*. Bahnsen argues that you'd have to be omniscient!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aren't you arguing from both sides, now?
Click to expand...


a) No. But I was never arguing from *a* side, so I could argue for both sides since we're trying to evaluate ethical decisions. 

b) Your first quote from me is my made up fallacy for your response,

c) My last quote serves to show the problems you face in making this decision from cost benefit analysis. In this thread you've been *strictly* consequentialist in your ethical decision making. There's nothing wrong with looking at the consequences, but deontologial and virtue ethics need to be brought to bear too.

d) If your bolded part is saying you agree with me, then you just beat your own argument. if you agree with me then you simply used the *talk* of the benefit over the cost as a club to silence your opponent and prove your case. But when pressed, you've not been able to show that your *crucial premise* was true. You don't just get to *assert* that you net more hedons with your view, thsu it is moral. That's what is being debated. So, you *assumed* that you'd net more hedons because "it just can't be wrong to drive my car." SO you've nothing but beg questions here.


----------



## LockTheDeadbolt

Am I one of the 75,000?

More importantly, and completely unrelated, am I one of the 144,000?


----------



## VictorBravo

Tom B. I'm very heartened by your more recent comments. You're hitting on the points I was thinking about last night as I tried to sleep.

The only thing I'll add is that this question mirrors 20th century jurisprudence. The OW Holmes and Karl Llewellyn approach was to toss out the old common law because it was grounded in a sense of fixed principles, and instead apply a "legal-realism" approach leading to positive law. (The legal version of positivism--that is, what is good is what the law says, not the law is good because it reflects good principles).

As I raised the issue at first, and others have hit on, the idea that a law decreeing that some will die for the convenience of many is this form of positivism. (And it is a law because the question proposed a democratic decision that is presumedly implemented by the society). So right off the bat we are following the utilitarian view of the legal usurpers.

Yes, death is inherently evil. A scenario that asks us to determine that someone would die randomly (that is, not according to justice) is accordingly evil too. In that context, risk-reward analysis is a snare.

This in not to say that we shouldn't apply risk-reward analysis to our actions. It is just to say that it has no place in determining this type of question (one in which the direct result of our vote is a cause of someone's death). 

Of course in scenarios of war, emergency, etc., such analysis is appropriate. People are going to die anyway and you are trying to figure out how to minimize that.


----------



## Answerman

I answered yes, with one caveat. That a yes answer would be biblically ethical.

I know, I know, this raises more questions than it answers.

BTW, isn't a gun a kind of convenience machine, it makes biblically ethical killing so much more effecient. It also could cause unintentional deaths and contribute to environmental distress. So I think I know TB answer to this question.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Tom Bombadil said:


> So, you *assumed* that you'd net more hedons because "it just can't be wrong to drive my car." SO you've nothing but beg questions here.



Actually, I've proposed hypotheticals - the exercise was never to validate the morality of driving cars - the car discussion was supposed to be analogous to your original proposition. You have fleshed out your hypothetical somewhat, but just as you have pointed out, the data set for validation is incomplete. Unless you can quantify additional criteria, we are really just poking around in the dark.

Also, I proposed from the beginning that you and I both presuppose that driving are cars is morally acceptable, since we both are morally sensitive creatures, yet we both drive cars.


----------



## Calvibaptist

SemperFideles said:


> I guess I voted the lone yes so far.
> 
> I already voted yes several times by buying several automobiles.
> 
> HYPOCRITES!



I don't think it is hypocritical to say that I would not vote for the development of a "Convenience Machine" that would cost 75,000 lives just from the development of it. This is what the OP asked. And I responded that I would not vote for it.

Now, if the OP had said that the *MISUSE* of this "Convenience Machine" would cost that many lives, I would vote for it and tell those 75,000 people not to misuse it.

Most deaths in car accidents are the result of some form of misuse of the car. We could just as easily exchange car with airplane, alcohol, gun, bow and arrow, stick, small pebbles (for you Monty Python fan). The misuse of any of these things can cause death. That does not mean they are not good in and of themselves.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Calvibaptist said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I voted the lone yes so far.
> 
> I already voted yes several times by buying several automobiles.
> 
> HYPOCRITES!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is hypocritical to say that I would not vote for the development of a "Convenience Machine" that would cost 75,000 lives just from the development of it. This is what the OP asked. And I responded that I would not vote for it.
> 
> Now, if the OP had said that the *MISUSE* of this "Convenience Machine" would cost that many lives, I would vote for it and tell those 75,000 people not to misuse it.
> 
> Most deaths in car accidents are the result of some form of misuse of the car. We could just as easily exchange car with airplane, alcohol, gun, bow and arrow, stick, small pebbles (for you Monty Python fan). The misuse of any of these things can cause death. That does not mean they are not good in and of themselves.
Click to expand...


It was a joke. I would not actually label people so wantonly.


----------



## Sonoftheday

A difference between this hypothetical Convience Machine and Automobiles is this. 

With an automobile it is never me who will do the killing, and it will never be me who gets killed. The automobile is completely safe for me it is only those other people who dont know what thier doing, or dont care, that actually get killed or kill others. 

This line of thinking of course does not match up to reality, but it is the way we think. We very rarely get into an automobile and say today I might die on my way to work, or perhaps kill someone else. We rarely blame the car company when someone does die, its like blaming the gun company because some bloke used it to do himself in. Its always some persons fault, ie. the Driver/s.

If we looked at the convience machine the same way that we look at automobiles then we would all say Yes. But we are looking at it as a machine that will cost lives to work, not cost lives becuase of the carelessness of people, or the ocassional malfunction of machinery.


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you *assumed* that you'd net more hedons because "it just can't be wrong to drive my car." SO you've nothing but beg questions here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I've proposed hypotheticals - the exercise was never to validate the morality of driving cars - the car discussion was supposed to be analogous to your original proposition. You have fleshed out your hypothetical somewhat, but just as you have pointed out, the data set for validation is incomplete. Unless you can quantify additional criteria, we are really just poking around in the dark.
> 
> Also, I proposed from the beginning that you and I both presuppose that driving are cars is morally acceptable, since we both are morally sensitive creatures, yet we both drive cars.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's immoral to drive cars. I think you're overreacting. I've said this three times now.

Funny, you proposed that the data was on your side, that it was cost beneficial to drive vs. the lost life, but you can't show that. I showed how you begged the question. I thought it was obvious. If you can't see that then...

That we both agree that it isn't immoral (per se) doesn't mean that _the way you're getting to your conclusion_ is the right or best way.

I think you're mixing way too many things up, and that is creating problems for you.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Calvibaptist said:


> I don't think it is hypocritical to say that I would not vote for the development of a "Convenience Machine" that would cost 75,000 lives just from the development of it. This is what the OP asked. And I responded that I would not vote for it.
> 
> Now, if the OP had said that the *MISUSE* of this "Convenience Machine" would cost that many lives, I would vote for it and tell those 75,000 people not to misuse it.
> 
> Most deaths in car accidents are the result of some form of misuse of the car. We could just as easily exchange car with airplane, alcohol, gun, bow and arrow, stick, small pebbles (for you Monty Python fan). The misuse of any of these things can cause death. That does not mean they are not good in and of themselves.



Use or missuse doesn't matter. Fact is, it costs lives. I'm trying to see what the justification is. 

If one said that people would missuse the convenience machine, and it would cost 75,000 lives, it's notm clear that we should then say, "Oh, well, that it's _mis_use that causes the deaths, let's vote her in!"

Lastly, when people make statistical arguments, they need to show the statistics. Where are the stats for "most deaths."

And, not to get into a long post:

a) Let's say we exchanged those other things, why think it's moral? You just pushed the question back.

b) Guns primarily cause the deaths of criminals etc. There'd be too many relevant disanalogies for your counter to work.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Sonoftheday said:


> A difference between this hypothetical Convience Machine and Automobiles is this.
> 
> With an automobile it is never me who will do the killing, and it will never be me who gets killed. The automobile is completely safe for me it is only those other people who dont know what thier doing, or dont care, that actually get killed or kill others.
> 
> This line of thinking of course does not match up to reality, but it is the way we think. We very rarely get into an automobile and say today I might die on my way to work, or perhaps kill someone else. We rarely blame the car company when someone does die, its like blaming the gun company because some bloke used it to do himself in. Its always some persons fault, ie. the Driver/s.
> 
> If we looked at the convience machine the same way that we look at automobiles then we would all say Yes. But we are looking at it as a machine that will cost lives to work, not cost lives becuase of the carelessness of people, or the ocassional malfunction of machinery.



I don't think that matters. Fact is, 75,000 lives are lost because of convenience. In fact, I never said the machine would do anything. I just said it would cost 75,000 lives for us to have it. Same with the car.

One point you do bring up that's good, perhaps we should be more careful when we drive. More cognizent of our surroundings. Not take our convenience machine for granted. Realize the cost we pay for it. Thank God for it. As for clarity when we drive. Saftey for other drivers. Etc.


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Bombadil said:


>



Dude, that is so awesome. I see that you have the Carl F Henry 6 volume set. Of course, you are holding a shotgun and looking really bad tough and the first thing I notice is your books in the background!


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Bombadil said:


> 3. Remington 870 Magnum



Same gun I have.


----------



## VictorBravo

Spear Dane said:


> Dude, that is so awesome. I see that you have the Carl F Henry 6 volume set. Of course, you are holding a shotgun and looking really bad tough and the first thing I notice is your books in the background!



Yeah, I noticed the James White book too.


----------



## RamistThomist

victorbravo said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, that is so awesome. I see that you have the Carl F Henry 6 volume set. Of course, you are holding a shotgun and looking really bad tough and the first thing I notice is your books in the background!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I noticed the James White book too.
Click to expand...


In the other picture you can see that Bahnsen book. I also noticed Calvin, Reymind, Frame, and Hodge.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

victorbravo said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, that is so awesome. I see that you have the Carl F Henry 6 volume set. Of course, you are holding a shotgun and looking really bad tough and the first thing I notice is your books in the background!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I noticed the James White book too.
Click to expand...


I noticed the gut...but then he used to be in the Navy.


----------



## Jim Johnston

SemperFideles said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, that is so awesome. I see that you have the Carl F Henry 6 volume set. Of course, you are holding a shotgun and looking really bad tough and the first thing I notice is your books in the background!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I noticed the James White book too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I noticed the gut...but then he used to be in the Navy.
Click to expand...


Camera adds 15 pounds!

I had a 6 pack in that pick. Don't know why it came out that way...

I'd think you guys would want the extra padding given that you're all America's bullet sponges!


----------



## Jim Johnston

Spear Dane said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, that is so awesome. I see that you have the Carl F Henry 6 volume set. Of course, you are holding a shotgun and looking really bad tough and the first thing I notice is your books in the background!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I noticed the James White book too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the other picture you can see that Bahnsen book. I also noticed Calvin, Reymind, Frame, and Hodge.
Click to expand...


And you can see Kline's Kingdom Prologue too!


----------



## RamistThomist

It's right under your elbow. I had to look for a second. Now I am going to be looking behind you to see what you have been reading!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I haven't read through the whole thread yet and I voted yes already. I wonder if the convenience machine will save lives also. It seems it would have to. It seems like this is a comparison to the automobile. We use contemplate this kind of stuff during class when I was in college.


----------



## panta dokimazete

jdlongmire said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you *assumed* that you'd net more hedons because "it just can't be wrong to drive my car." SO you've nothing but beg questions here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I've proposed hypotheticals - the exercise was never to validate the morality of driving cars - the car discussion was supposed to be analogous to your original proposition. You have fleshed out your hypothetical somewhat, but just as you have pointed out, the data set for validation is incomplete. Unless you can quantify additional criteria, we are really just poking around in the dark.
> 
> Also, I proposed from the beginning that you and I both presuppose that driving are cars is morally acceptable, since we both are morally sensitive creatures, yet we both drive cars.
Click to expand...




TB said:


> I don't think it's immoral to drive cars. I think you're overreacting. I've said this three times now.



I doubt I'm overreacting, but I admire your use of hyperbole. 

I think that I have said multiple time that we agree _in principle_ that driving cars is not immoral.



> Funny, you proposed that the data was on your side, that it was cost beneficial to drive vs. the lost life, but you can't show that. I showed how you begged the question. I thought it was obvious. If you can't see that then...



Tom, I am sure that the datum is supportive. I have not the time, nor the inclination to gather it for our hypothetical discussion.



> That we both agree that it isn't immoral (per se) doesn't mean that _the way you're getting to your conclusion_ is the right or best way.



I am sure you are right - besides casting stones , what alternatives have you proposed?



> I think you're mixing way too many things up, and that is creating problems for you.



Problems? Again, with the hyperbole...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Spear Dane said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Remington 870 Magnum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same gun I have.
Click to expand...


I had one. I used for deer hunting. I gave it away to a buddy who sold his deer gun to buy an engagement ring. Poor sap. I took pity on him.


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you *assumed* that you'd net more hedons because "it just can't be wrong to drive my car." SO you've nothing but beg questions here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I've proposed hypotheticals - the exercise was never to validate the morality of driving cars - the car discussion was supposed to be analogous to your original proposition. You have fleshed out your hypothetical somewhat, but just as you have pointed out, the data set for validation is incomplete. Unless you can quantify additional criteria, we are really just poking around in the dark.
> 
> Also, I proposed from the beginning that you and I both presuppose that driving are cars is morally acceptable, since we both are morally sensitive creatures, yet we both drive cars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt I'm overreacting, but I admire your use of hyperbole.
> 
> I think that I have said multiple time that we agree _in principle_ that driving cars is not immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> Tom, I am sure that the datum is supportive. I have not the time, nor the inclination to gather it for our hypothetical discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That we both agree that it isn't immoral (per se) doesn't mean that _the way you're getting to your conclusion_ is the right or best way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure you are right - besides casting stones , what alternatives have you proposed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're mixing way too many things up, and that is creating problems for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problems? Again, with the hyperbole...
Click to expand...



I think you've now been relegated to posting unsubstantial responses. I'll take that as a tacit admission that you can't defend your position other than a wink, wink, "Well, we both agree anyway, and I could show the numbers if I wanted to", nudge, nudge.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Tom Bombadil said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I've proposed hypotheticals - the exercise was never to validate the morality of driving cars - the car discussion was supposed to be analogous to your original proposition. You have fleshed out your hypothetical somewhat, but just as you have pointed out, the data set for validation is incomplete. Unless you can quantify additional criteria, we are really just poking around in the dark.
> 
> Also, I proposed from the beginning that you and I both presuppose that driving are cars is morally acceptable, since we both are morally sensitive creatures, yet we both drive cars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt I'm overreacting, but I admire your use of hyperbole.
> 
> I think that I have said multiple time that we agree _in principle_ that driving cars is not immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> Tom, I am sure that the datum is supportive. I have not the time, nor the inclination to gather it for our hypothetical discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you are right - besides casting stones , what alternatives have you proposed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're mixing way too many things up, and that is creating problems for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problems? Again, with the hyperbole...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've now been relegated to posting unsubstantial responses. I'll take that as a tacit admission that you can't defend your position other than a wink, wink, "Well, we both agree anyway, and I could show the numbers if I wanted to", nudge, nudge.
Click to expand...


And I think you have conceded the conversation, as you have failed to demonstrate alternative methods for consideration. I don't really see any value presenting additional substantiation, since it is clear you are here only to critique.

wink, wink - nudge, nudge


----------



## Jim Johnston

Here's the essence of the convo.

The conversation was: why is it moral.

Your response: Because the good reaps more hedons than the bad.

My response: Prove it.

Your response: It's to complicated, but I could, just trust me.

I don't let atheists get off the hook when they think saying so makes it so, I can't let you either. Being a Christian isn't a free ride to making poor arguments.

So, yes, I've conceeded that you couldn't provide a good moral justification. You at least got that right.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Got about 10 minutes before chow time, so, to empirically prove my point to my brother, since that is the only evidence he will accept (such a doubting Tom...):

~6000 ambulance services in the US - say they - in toto - *only* make make *5* life saving trips per week:

6000 X 5 X 52 = ~1,560,000

Total fatalities by auto in the US/year = ~40000

I have the references if you need them.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Tom Bombadil said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key is assumption of known (or guessed at) risks. That's why the auto example would be acceptable and this proposal would not be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say that tested it in Russia for the past 10 years. They don't _know_ how many deaths it would produce, but 75,000 was an average. The intention isn't to kill, it is an unintended by-product. They _do know_ that deaths will occur, roughly 75,000, but it could be 65,000 one year. And, as I said, they're dedicated to making it safer.
> 
> They put it up for a vote here, which way would you go?
Click to expand...

 
How could they *know*? It seems to me that there are moral and immoral uses of this convenience machine. Hypothetical arguments for or against based on outcomes does not overturn the right of the individual to weigh these chioces--Automible drivers ought to know and take responsibility for the dangers of driving--the same with your "convenience machine". Convenience is not a wicked goal--it costs no lives, and murder is a sin.


----------



## VictorBravo

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> How could they *know*? It seems to me that there are moral and immoral uses of this convenience machine. Hypothetical arguments for or against based on outcomes does not overturn the right of the individual to weigh these chioces--Automible drivers ought to know and take responsibility for the dangers of driving--the same with your "convenience machine". Convenience is not a wicked goal--it costs no lives, and murder is a sin.



The original hypothetical presented the knowledge that deaths would result as a given. So the statements were assuming that in the argument. 

In other words, the original question asked how would one vote it if we are certain that convenience did cost lives.


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> Got about 10 minutes before chow time, so, to empirically prove my point to my brother, since that is the only evidence he will accept (such a doubting Tom...):
> 
> ~6000 ambulance services in the US - say they - in toto - *only* make make *5* life saving trips per week:
> 
> 6000 X 5 X 52 = ~1,560,000
> 
> Total fatalities by auto in the US/year = ~40000
> 
> I have the references if you need them.



Your argument only works if you assign an equal amount of hedons all around. Or, if you view your facts in isolations from other facts.

Death could cost 50 hedons while life saving could reap 15 hedons.

When S suffers, for him, it costs 1,000,000,000,000 hedons. When S* gets pleasure it's worth 25 hedons.

How would you know about the above two? Where's the calculations. Gonna find that on your google search engine? Perhaps Wikipedia has an article on it?

Or, say those whose lives were saved went out and did more evils resulting in a net loss of 10,000,000 hedons. Say one became the next Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Amin rolled up into one.

Or, one of those who died by getting hit, counterfactually, happened to be the person who would have (had it not been for the car) invented a cure for cancer, thus saving untold millions of lives. Thus the end result puts you in the red. Negative hedon balance.

J.D. haven't you learned anything from Bahnsen, Frame, Helm, Byl, Oliphint, Rae, Moreland, Craig, Shaffer-Landeau, Pojman, Rachels, Adams, etc., etc., etc., 

YOU HAVE NO WAY TO CALCULATE THE MULTIFARIOUS FACTORS!!! How many times do you need to read that? You have no clue how much John X has to pay and how much John Y receives. No one has been able to do this. As Bahnsen has said, you'd have to be omniscient to be a Utilitarian.

Back to the drawing board for you....


----------



## Jim Johnston

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key is assumption of known (or guessed at) risks. That's why the auto example would be acceptable and this proposal would not be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say that tested it in Russia for the past 10 years. They don't _know_ how many deaths it would produce, but 75,000 was an average. The intention isn't to kill, it is an unintended by-product. They _do know_ that deaths will occur, roughly 75,000, but it could be 65,000 one year. And, as I said, they're dedicated to making it safer.
> 
> They put it up for a vote here, which way would you go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could they *know*? It seems to me that there are moral and immoral uses of this convenience machine. Hypothetical arguments for or against based on outcomes does not overturn the right of the individual to weigh these chioces--Automible drivers ought to know and take responsibility for the dangers of driving--the same with your "convenience machine". Convenience is not a wicked goal--it costs no lives, and murder is a sin.
Click to expand...



I never said that it was a wicked goal. I'm actually for it, and cars, etc.

I tried to get people to give moral justifications for actions.

Thought it would bring out someo interesting points.

Apparently some people feel threatened that I'd ask them to present moral justifications for actions rather than taking things for granted.

I repent in sackcloth and ashes.

As Bruce Lee said in Enter The Dragon: "Don't think, _feel_."

No more of this  and this  and a lot more of this  and this


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Dear Merry Fellow, 

I hope you understand I'm not dodging your question. There are so many other factors that enter into a "cause and effect" relationship. I agree with you and Bahnsen in saying that one would have to be omniscient to be utilitarian. Further, I agree with Clark in saying that a cause and effect relationship would also require omniscience to ascertain. 

How exactly do machines kill people? Are not machines extensions of the human will and action? Are not machines morally neutral? Perhaps I'm not limiting my thoughts and considerations to your hypothetical situation. I'm not sure that this question can be answered without the specifics of the case--how do those that die from the use of this machine die? Is it human neglect or error? It is a violation of the 6th Commandment, or is it not? 

Can the machine be improved so that it poses less danger? Should we refrain form manufacture until such improvements are studied, and made? Is the right use of this machine harmless, and the misuse that kills? 

Sorry, brother. Perhaps my mental faculties are not very well suited to this type of hypothetical situation. I would be willing to look at any particular case, and compare it to the Moral Law to arrive at a Biblical finding. But your situation raises too many questions for me to give a good answer. 

Thanks,


----------



## Jim Johnston

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> Dear Merry Fellow,
> 
> I hope you understand I'm not dodging your question. There are so many other factors that enter into a "cause and effect" relationship. I agree with you and Bahnsen in saying that one would have to be omniscient to be utilitarian. Further, I agree with Clark in saying that a cause and effect relationship would also require omniscience to ascertain.
> 
> How exactly do machines kill people? Are not machines extensions of the human will and action? Are not machines morally neutral? Perhaps I'm not limiting my thoughts and considerations to your hypothetical situation. I'm not sure that this question can be answered without the specifics of the case--how do those that die from the use of this machine die? Is it human neglect or error? It is a violation of the 6th Commandment, or is it not?
> 
> Can the machine be improved so that it poses less danger? Should we refrain form manufacture until such improvements are studied, and made? Is the right use of this machine harmless, and the misuse that kills?
> 
> Sorry, brother. Perhaps my mental faculties are not very well suited to this type of hypothetical situation. I would be willing to look at any particular case, and compare it to the Moral Law to arrive at a Biblical finding. But your situation raises too many questions for me to give a good answer.
> 
> Thanks,



Rev. Todd,

Sorry for snapping.

the point it: By having X machine, that will cost us X-hundred/thousand/million?... life.

X machine is largly for our convenience, for our ability to grow economically, etc.

Fact is, human life is dying. _Howver that happens_ - accideent, on pupose, etc. - doesn't really matter. We have thousands of dead image bearers for our (largely) convenience machine.

Since having X machine and using it is an action we perform, and since it has certain side effects, and one of those effetcs is loss of human life, then our actions (or approval of the situation) are responsible (whether directly or indirectly, on purpose or by accidents, doesn't matter) for loss of life. It seems that this could be morally evaluated. For example, say that X-machine were the black slaves. We rightly ask them to justify slavery. We find out that the convenience wasn't worth the price.

So, I'm just asking about how we bring moral principles to the situation and apply them, some answers might say something about our character and motives, and thus answering the question touches on the 4 main (or three, if you include the last two, as do Frame and Bahnsen) types of ethical systems.

That was basically the purpose, but this thread dragging on and getting lower on my priority list since other fish have arisen to fry.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Tom Bombadil said:


> Use or missuse doesn't matter. Fact is, it costs lives. I'm trying to see what the justification is.
> 
> If one said that people would missuse the convenience machine, and it would cost 75,000 lives, it's notm clear that we should then say, "Oh, well, that it's _mis_use that causes the deaths, let's vote her in!"



It does matter because the proper use of a convenience machine would not cause these deaths, but the missuse would. The same could be said for anything. Proper use of a shovel won't cause 75,000 deaths. But if you use is improperly to stab 75,000 people with it, it will cost 75,000 deaths. Should we then not create the shovel? It matters a lot.



Tom Bombadil said:


> Lastly, when people make statistical arguments, they need to show the statistics. Where are the stats for "most deaths."



Simply put, if you drive the speed limit, obey all traffic laws, wear your seat belt, and watch out for other drivers (who are all doing the same) as you should, there won't be the 75,000 deaths. The accidents don't happen because people are properly using the convenience machine. They happen because people fail to take all the necessary precautions and use it properly.


----------



## Jim Johnston

> It does matter because the proper use of a convenience machine would not cause these deaths, but the missuse would.



take a car for instance. one could use it properly, obey the rules, get all the tune-ups, etc., and the car could hydroplane and cause a 50 car pile up. Your assumption that car accidents only occur via missuse is a dubious assumption, at best.



> Simply put, if you drive the speed limit, obey all traffic laws, wear your seat belt, and watch out for other drivers (who are all doing the same) as you should, there won't be the 75,000 deaths.



Simply put, you must be Amish. Haven't been around vehicles much?

Simply put, people ARE going to missuse it. Can't get around that. So, factor that it. That is: A device that is used for our convenience, but people will missuse it and cost 50,000 Americann lives per yer, and people will properly use it and cost 25,000 lives per year. So, we know that it takes lives - by accident/proper use + accident/improper use + non-accident improper use. Fact is, lives are lost due to our desire to have the machine, doesn't matter how.

And, if you must, take the number down to 25,000. There, that sounds better. Of course we're morally justified with the 25,000. I mean, it's just 25,000. That's a drop in the bucket.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Tom Bombadil said:


> Simply put, you must be Amish. Haven't been around vehicles much?


No, its just that he doesn't live in California. Ha!


----------



## Barnpreacher

Interesting thread.

I know I'm jumping in here late, but this does sound like a classic case of utilitarianism from a worldly ethical viewpoint. Does your pleasure (convenience) outweigh the pain of others (families who lose loved ones). But doesn't that come into play for any convenience machine or invention? I don't know what the statistics are but I imagine over the years the butter knife has caused some accidental deaths. Granted, it hasn't caused near as many deaths as the automobile. But as Tom said, does it matter if it's 75,000 deaths a year or two? 

I guess the hardness of man's heart has its effects on all things, whether it be marriage, the automobile, or the butter knife.


----------



## Jim Johnston

caleb_woodrow said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, you must be Amish. Haven't been around vehicles much?
> 
> 
> 
> No, its just that he doesn't live in California. Ha!
Click to expand...



Now _that's_ an intrinsic evil.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Tom Bombadil said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got about 10 minutes before chow time, so, to empirically prove my point to my brother, since that is the only evidence he will accept (such a doubting Tom...):
> 
> ~6000 ambulance services in the US - say they - in toto - *only* make make *5* life saving trips per week:
> 
> 6000 X 5 X 52 = ~1,560,000
> 
> Total fatalities by auto in the US/year = ~40000
> 
> I have the references if you need them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument only works if you assign an equal amount of hedons all around. Or, if you view your facts in isolations from other facts.
> 
> Death could cost 50 hedons while life saving could reap 15 hedons.
> 
> When S suffers, for him, it costs 1,000,000,000,000 hedons. When S* gets pleasure it's worth 25 hedons.
> 
> How would you know about the above two? Where's the calculations. Gonna find that on your google search engine? Perhaps Wikipedia has an article on it?
> 
> Or, say those whose lives were saved went out and did more evils resulting in a net loss of 10,000,000 hedons. Say one became the next Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Amin rolled up into one.
> 
> Or, one of those who died by getting hit, counterfactually, happened to be the person who would have (had it not been for the car) invented a cure for cancer, thus saving untold millions of lives. Thus the end result puts you in the red. Negative hedon balance.
> 
> J.D. haven't you learned anything from Bahnsen, Frame, Helm, Byl, Oliphint, Rae, Moreland, Craig, Shaffer-Landeau, Pojman, Rachels, Adams, etc., etc., etc.,
> 
> YOU HAVE NO WAY TO CALCULATE THE MULTIFARIOUS FACTORS!!! How many times do you need to read that? You have no clue how much John X has to pay and how much John Y receives. No one has been able to do this. As Bahnsen has said, you'd have to be omniscient to be a Utilitarian.
> 
> Back to the drawing board for you....
Click to expand...


Dear brother, according to your answer, no technology would ever have been developed. We would exist in a perpetual state of analysis paralysis. I concur with the fact that we humans are indeed limited by our non-omniscience. How wonderful it is that we have sovereign guidance over all these things! Since we know that "all things work together for good", we can take some comfort in knowing that even with our simple pragmatic calculations we do not pre-judge the worth of even *one human life* over the other. It is* a choice* to utilize the technology we develop with an understanding that some risk comes with the reward. You did not include the consideration that along with my vote to allow the machine would also be my tacit expectation to utilize it. It is my choice to take the risk, along with my authority over my family to expose them to the risk and I am willing to do that only because the risk is so small, the reward so great and the ultimate outcome is under God's sovereignty. I use this rationale *every day*.

It is this rationale that we follow when we *reject* the "convenience machine" of abortion. God has helped us understand the risk v reward in this instance. The risk of murdering or tactily approving the murder of a human being, any human being, no matter what the "hedon" balance is, compromises our assurance of eternal reward.

It is also this rationale that I follow when I *approve* the "convenience machine" of capital punishment. God has helped us understand that certain acts (say murder) outweigh any present or future potential of this person, so the risk of approving this death does not compromise my eternal reward and is also a high reward for society, in general.

My seeming "empiricism" is always tempered by my God-given morality and an understanding that He is sovereign.

SDG!


----------



## Mushroom

"Hedon balance". Now there is an interesting term. My mind is incapable of forming a mental picture around those words, and for that I am grateful.


----------



## Jim Johnston

jdlongmire said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got about 10 minutes before chow time, so, to empirically prove my point to my brother, since that is the only evidence he will accept (such a doubting Tom...):
> 
> ~6000 ambulance services in the US - say they - in toto - *only* make make *5* life saving trips per week:
> 
> 6000 X 5 X 52 = ~1,560,000
> 
> Total fatalities by auto in the US/year = ~40000
> 
> I have the references if you need them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument only works if you assign an equal amount of hedons all around. Or, if you view your facts in isolations from other facts.
> 
> Death could cost 50 hedons while life saving could reap 15 hedons.
> 
> When S suffers, for him, it costs 1,000,000,000,000 hedons. When S* gets pleasure it's worth 25 hedons.
> 
> How would you know about the above two? Where's the calculations. Gonna find that on your google search engine? Perhaps Wikipedia has an article on it?
> 
> Or, say those whose lives were saved went out and did more evils resulting in a net loss of 10,000,000 hedons. Say one became the next Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Amin rolled up into one.
> 
> Or, one of those who died by getting hit, counterfactually, happened to be the person who would have (had it not been for the car) invented a cure for cancer, thus saving untold millions of lives. Thus the end result puts you in the red. Negative hedon balance.
> 
> J.D. haven't you learned anything from Bahnsen, Frame, Helm, Byl, Oliphint, Rae, Moreland, Craig, Shaffer-Landeau, Pojman, Rachels, Adams, etc., etc., etc.,
> 
> YOU HAVE NO WAY TO CALCULATE THE MULTIFARIOUS FACTORS!!! How many times do you need to read that? You have no clue how much John X has to pay and how much John Y receives. No one has been able to do this. As Bahnsen has said, you'd have to be omniscient to be a Utilitarian.
> 
> Back to the drawing board for you....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear brother, according to your answer, no technology would ever have been developed. We would exist in a perpetual state of analysis paralysis. I concur with the fact that we humans are indeed limited by our non-omniscience. How wonderful it is that we have sovereign guidance over all these things! Since we know that "all things work together for good", we can take some comfort in knowing that even with our simple pragmatic calculations we do not pre-judge the worth of even *one human life* over the other. It is* a choice* to utilize the technology we develop with an understanding that some risk comes with the reward. You did not include the consideration that along with my vote to allow the machine would also be my tacit expectation to utilize it. It is my choice to take the risk, along with my authority over my family to expose them to the risk and I am willing to do that only because the risk is so small, the reward so great and the ultimate outcome is under God's sovereignty. I use this rationale *every day*.
> 
> It is this rationale that we follow when we *reject* the "convenience machine" of abortion. God has helped us understand the risk v reward in this instance. The risk of murdering or tactily approving the murder of a human being, any human being, no matter what the "hedon" balance is, compromises our assurance of eternal reward.
> 
> It is also this rationale that I follow when I *approve* the "convenience machine" of capital punishment. God has helped us understand that certain acts (say murder) outweigh any present or future potential of this person, so the risk of approving this death does not compromise my eternal reward and is also a high reward for society, in general.
> 
> My seeming "empiricism" is always tempered by my God-given morality and an understanding that He is sovereign.
> 
> SDG!
Click to expand...


J.D. 

No technology would develop only if you oversimplify things. You see, I don't only take _consequences_ into account (or, sometimes God tells us what they are and so an omniscient being told us what they are and we can trust him). To give a cost/benefit answer, as your only answer, suffers from the problems I've listed.

"All things work tegether for good" is simplistic again. Why not bring back American slavery? Because it's immoral? Oh, so we need to look at the morality of our actions? That's what I'm doing here. So you've begged the question, again.

I know we all have the "gut feeling" that our use of cars isn't immoral. And, it probably isn't. But, when asked for a moral justification for that, we must admit that you've flat out not given good reasons for that "gut feeling." The numbers you gave were always shown to be based on short sighted and sloppy calculations, you frequently assumed the morality of the action up for discussion, and you didn't include other necessary features required for making moral decisions, you just appealed to teleological ethics.


----------



## panta dokimazete

TB said:


> No technology would develop only if you oversimplify things. You see, I don't only take consequences into account (or, sometimes God tells us what they are and so an omniscient being told us what they are and we can trust him). To give a cost/benefit answer, as your only answer, suffers from the problems I've listed.



And, as I've said, and as you continue to ignore, my cost v benefit analysis includes trust in God's guidance, through Word and Spirit - what He *does* tell us and what He *doesn't* tell us. What do you have to offer?



> "All things work tegether for good" is simplistic again. Why not bring back American slavery? Because it's immoral? Oh, so we need to look at the morality of our actions? That's what I'm doing here. So you've begged the question, again.



The only one oversimplifying is you - you continue to try and run the discussion off-course by critiquing vs. offering an alternative to my rationale. It is easy to drum up problems, not so easy to give solutions. Your method is weak.



> I know we all have the "gut feeling" that our use of cars isn't immoral. And, it probably isn't. But, when asked for a moral justification for that, we must admit that you've flat out not given good reasons for that "gut feeling." The numbers you gave were always shown to be based on short sighted and sloppy calculations, you frequently assumed the morality of the action up for discussion, and you didn't include other necessary features required for making moral decisions, you just appealed to teleological ethics.



lol - My earlier presupposition that automobiles have a higher reward than risk was based on a reasonable assumption that I then backed up with factual evidence based on a presupposition of the equal value of human life. At least my "short sighted and sloppy" calculations refer to real numbers and not to some figmented "hedon" that I pulled from some nether region of my body! 

You appeal to "something" that disallows for anyone to make *any* decision based on *anything* because we can't possibly know all the consequences caused by our decision. Now, I will and have admitted to our non-omniscience, but I have plenty of support to decide/choose based on my faith and reason. What are you appealing to?

Are you afraid to swat a fly because of all the potential ramifications? All I hear is what I hear from my atheistic opponents:

What if? What if? What if? 

Let's discuss *what is*.


----------



## Jim Johnston

J.D. I'm confident that you have not answered anything I've said. I' sure you're confident that I have not adequately dealt with your position. So I think we can both sleep well knowing that what we've said has not been overturned.

As I told someone via private message, I'm gonna bow out of this convo now. Constantly repeating arguments, having points ignored or not grasped, having to do background work to get you up to speed, etc., is all putting my hedon balance in the red. 

I'm sure you can agree that it would be immoral for me to continue this conversation anymore since my cost of hedons outweighs any benefit you or anyone else are receiving.

I hope three Excedrin and a shot of J.D. (the ole #7) can bring my hedon account into the black...


----------



## RamistThomist

Tom Bombadil said:


>



I couldn't resist. Even so, Paul still wins.


----------

