First of all, my ringtone is now set to "Phone Home" by Lil Wayne.
Second, yeah, I deliberately went with the teachers on that one to see where it would get me. But your response is interesting, and it is actually exactly what I wanted, because it gets us closer to the root of the question: what the hell are we talking about when we say "the good?" You made the claim that the random sampling of 100 homeless folk could contain more utility than the other two groups, what kind of good are they bringing about? (I am not asking that question because I think the homeless have no value, but because I think it could get us closer to our meaning of "the good")
See, here is something interesting that you may not know, I had plastic surgery (technically) twice, same procedure and all, just twice. I can honestly say that it boosted my confidence incredibly, so even plastic surgeons can have some utility, even if they mostly just pander to stupid women and men who needs lots of actual plastic in their bodies, and they can have negative effects on people when they screw up, which they do all the time.
Even a random sampling of teachers, and I mean real teachers not driving instructors, I wouldn't allow them in the pool, I think have the potential to do some real good work. Especially when it is K through 2nd grade, even just having a decent attitude most of the day and speaking with kids that young can do wonders for their development. But yeah, some teachers suck ass, especially in America, but if it is a random sampling then it can be international, if so the stock of good teachers may grow in size, or diminish, hmmmm.
So what "good" does a homeless person contribute?
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
100 Homeless People
Jeremy Bentham! A "Lost" reference! "No" you say? Jeremy Bentham came before "Lost"? So this isn't an excuse to write about "Lost"? Damn.
It is a good topic, Kyle. Yet you surprise me. I am shocked you have such faith in the ingrained educational system. This is the problem with the hypothetical in my opinion. Doesn't it matter what KIND of doctors or teachers they are? If they are fifteen of the smartest, most forward looking, outside-the-box teachers, then I agree. However, if it was a random sampling of fifteen teachers I suspect the utility would be severely less. I mean I had a useless driving instructor once, he wouldn't let us go on the highway. I would definitely save ONE homeless person over that guy. I think the same thing applies to the doctors. Yes, if it was pediatrician, a neuro-surgeon and a clinical psychiatrist, they would be worth saving. But if it was a random sampling of doctors (which would almost certainly contain a plastic-surgeon) then the utility would be less. To this end, I think based simply on sample-size the hundred homeless people would be most likely to produce the most utility because, based on what I just wrote, I think a random sampling of homeless people would be likely to have more then five useful members (especially in the shitty economy).
This question is represents both what I love about Philosophy and why I decided not to pursue a graduate degree. I need my philosophy to have some direct contact with the real world and too often in spins out of control. But the question is undeniably a fascinating one. We obviously make social utility decisions every day. Every war is, on a base level, about this (even if it is about one person determining that he or she is more important then a million others).
Kyle, as I said above, I'm surprised that you think teachers would provide the highest utility. I would love for you to elaborate on why, if you faced this question in the real world, you would chose the fifteen teachers. Can you name fifteen teachers period who you would save? Maybe you are less cynical then you seem.
It is a good topic, Kyle. Yet you surprise me. I am shocked you have such faith in the ingrained educational system. This is the problem with the hypothetical in my opinion. Doesn't it matter what KIND of doctors or teachers they are? If they are fifteen of the smartest, most forward looking, outside-the-box teachers, then I agree. However, if it was a random sampling of fifteen teachers I suspect the utility would be severely less. I mean I had a useless driving instructor once, he wouldn't let us go on the highway. I would definitely save ONE homeless person over that guy. I think the same thing applies to the doctors. Yes, if it was pediatrician, a neuro-surgeon and a clinical psychiatrist, they would be worth saving. But if it was a random sampling of doctors (which would almost certainly contain a plastic-surgeon) then the utility would be less. To this end, I think based simply on sample-size the hundred homeless people would be most likely to produce the most utility because, based on what I just wrote, I think a random sampling of homeless people would be likely to have more then five useful members (especially in the shitty economy).
This question is represents both what I love about Philosophy and why I decided not to pursue a graduate degree. I need my philosophy to have some direct contact with the real world and too often in spins out of control. But the question is undeniably a fascinating one. We obviously make social utility decisions every day. Every war is, on a base level, about this (even if it is about one person determining that he or she is more important then a million others).
Kyle, as I said above, I'm surprised that you think teachers would provide the highest utility. I would love for you to elaborate on why, if you faced this question in the real world, you would chose the fifteen teachers. Can you name fifteen teachers period who you would save? Maybe you are less cynical then you seem.
Where my people at?
So Ben took us in a different direction last week, music, now I shall take us in another completely different direction: Philosophy. In the heading of our blog it says that it is a blog about (partly) philosophy, so it is about damn time we got cracking on some of it.
My query revolves around the ethics of utilitarianism and its application to population issues. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that was championed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill back in the 1800's. In gist form it can be understood like so: Act in such a way so that the consequences of your actions are likely to yield the greatest amount of good (Mill used the word "good" Bentham used the word "happiness.") Probably the most famous (or infamous) decision ever made using utility as a defense was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. America made the decision to decimate two Japanese targets in order to "save a million lives."
But I don't really want to get into applying utilitarian ethics to the problem of overpopulation just yet, we can save that for a little later, let the ethical juices marinate over the topic while we handle some smaller utilitarian issues.
It is obviously very important how one chooses to define the "good" in Mill's formulation of utilitarianism. For example, in a hypothetical situation where you are forced to sacrifice one group in order to save another, where the first is a group of three doctors (brain surgeon, heart surgeon, and a pediatrician) and the second is a group of fifteen teachers (five elementary, five middle school, five high school), how does one make a decision that maximizes the "good." Is it better to save the doctors due to the fact that they can help to save more lives in the future and provide care that will improve the general health of many people? Or is it better to save the teachers who will be able to enhance the minds of several future generations potentially providing an incredible amount of good to their students (hell, maybe even due to the teachings of one of these educators one of their students becomes a doctor)? Perhaps we don't even bother to think about the potential benefits of saving either party, but simply go on numbers. Sacrificing 15 lives to save 3 seems like a decent trade, and it seems reasonable to think that, given the predicament, saving the 15 is the best way to maximize the "good." Yet what if a third group was added: 100 homeless people. You can still only save one group. Now it seems odd to go just on numbers because (and this is a bit harsh) it seems as if the doctors and teachers will clearly produce more good if they are saved than the homeless will produce.
For my money, I save the teachers, even with the presence of the 100 person homeless group, I think the potential benefit that the teachers could have on their students will reap benefits that may never end. If through their work the teachers help produce students who get decent jobs and start families (or maybe become doctors or environmental scientists), then the potential spider web of goodness seems almost infinite. The doctors on the other hand specialize on keeping people alive and healthy. This has clear benefits and certainly falls under the category of "good," but the teachers whole job is focused around expanding minds and growing individuals, the doctors don't really get into that aspect of life, they are more concerned with keeping people alive and healthy, which can have a sweet spider web of goodness attached to it as well, but looking at the purpose of a doctor next to the purpose of a teacher I think the teacher has a leg up on producing more "good."
So, what do people think of utilitarianism in general, what group would you save (teachers vs doctors........teachers vs. doctors vs. homeless)?
PHILOSOPHY!
My query revolves around the ethics of utilitarianism and its application to population issues. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that was championed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill back in the 1800's. In gist form it can be understood like so: Act in such a way so that the consequences of your actions are likely to yield the greatest amount of good (Mill used the word "good" Bentham used the word "happiness.") Probably the most famous (or infamous) decision ever made using utility as a defense was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. America made the decision to decimate two Japanese targets in order to "save a million lives."
But I don't really want to get into applying utilitarian ethics to the problem of overpopulation just yet, we can save that for a little later, let the ethical juices marinate over the topic while we handle some smaller utilitarian issues.
It is obviously very important how one chooses to define the "good" in Mill's formulation of utilitarianism. For example, in a hypothetical situation where you are forced to sacrifice one group in order to save another, where the first is a group of three doctors (brain surgeon, heart surgeon, and a pediatrician) and the second is a group of fifteen teachers (five elementary, five middle school, five high school), how does one make a decision that maximizes the "good." Is it better to save the doctors due to the fact that they can help to save more lives in the future and provide care that will improve the general health of many people? Or is it better to save the teachers who will be able to enhance the minds of several future generations potentially providing an incredible amount of good to their students (hell, maybe even due to the teachings of one of these educators one of their students becomes a doctor)? Perhaps we don't even bother to think about the potential benefits of saving either party, but simply go on numbers. Sacrificing 15 lives to save 3 seems like a decent trade, and it seems reasonable to think that, given the predicament, saving the 15 is the best way to maximize the "good." Yet what if a third group was added: 100 homeless people. You can still only save one group. Now it seems odd to go just on numbers because (and this is a bit harsh) it seems as if the doctors and teachers will clearly produce more good if they are saved than the homeless will produce.
For my money, I save the teachers, even with the presence of the 100 person homeless group, I think the potential benefit that the teachers could have on their students will reap benefits that may never end. If through their work the teachers help produce students who get decent jobs and start families (or maybe become doctors or environmental scientists), then the potential spider web of goodness seems almost infinite. The doctors on the other hand specialize on keeping people alive and healthy. This has clear benefits and certainly falls under the category of "good," but the teachers whole job is focused around expanding minds and growing individuals, the doctors don't really get into that aspect of life, they are more concerned with keeping people alive and healthy, which can have a sweet spider web of goodness attached to it as well, but looking at the purpose of a doctor next to the purpose of a teacher I think the teacher has a leg up on producing more "good."
So, what do people think of utilitarianism in general, what group would you save (teachers vs doctors........teachers vs. doctors vs. homeless)?
PHILOSOPHY!
Monday, March 23, 2009
I forget
whose week it is to topic-start. I'm glad you came around. I think this marks our second successful conversation in that we started at disparate points and managed to find some middle ground. So good on us. I think it is on you Kyle and not to put to much on your plate between commissionering the fantasy baseball league and work, but I bet there is more material to be mined in and around this topic.
So i'll leave it for now while I ponder the conversation that just transpired.
Oh! and Kings on NBC is a totally alright show. It's the first new major network show I've liked since Pushing Daisies went under.
Plus a news story to file under "Real Life and 'The Onion' are Now Indistinguishable"
So i'll leave it for now while I ponder the conversation that just transpired.
Oh! and Kings on NBC is a totally alright show. It's the first new major network show I've liked since Pushing Daisies went under.
Plus a news story to file under "Real Life and 'The Onion' are Now Indistinguishable"
Sunday, March 22, 2009
FUCK
I have listened to the third Carter album again, its pretty fucking awesome. God Damnit.
I still prefer Nas for all of the aforementioned aesthetic reasons, but this album is pretty awesome, tie my hands, mr carter, a milli, and a bunch of other tracks are just god damn fire.
Fuck
I still prefer Nas for all of the aforementioned aesthetic reasons, but this album is pretty awesome, tie my hands, mr carter, a milli, and a bunch of other tracks are just god damn fire.
Fuck
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)