Vegan

[rabbit]

Hurting others doesn't cost me.
Like you said, it's subjective.

Hurting other people might benefit me ... greatly.

You seem to have forgotten to add things like "being sued" and "jail" into your cost analysis equation.

[CrAz3D]

Why would I report myself to the police instead of just burying people in my backyard?

[Sidoh]

Why would I report myself to the police instead of just burying people in my backyard?

Clearly your morals are stronger than that.  Aside from that, you're still discounting the risk of being caught.

[Krazed]

Morals are overrated.

[iago]

Why would I report myself to the police instead of just burying people in my backyard?

You do realize that many murderers get caught, right?

You're just trying to derail an argument that you've lost a long time ago.

[Ender]

Wow.

Before I thought CrAz3d was pulling our legs about his having no morals.

Now I'm thinking that he may actually have no morals...

[CrAz3D]

I 'spose I ought to think of a better scenario.


hmm.  oooh, I make chapstick that whens to explode under really rare conditions.  Three people die and I get sued.  Let's say it'd cost me $100k in lawsuits and $200k to fix the problem, which would I do?  The $100k cause that's the most beneficial.

[rabbit]

I have no idea what you're talking about....

[leet_muffin]

I have no idea what you're talking about....

C'mon, even I clearly understand what he's saying.

Someone's selling a product which malfunctions and causes death/injury. Lawsuits as a result of this cost $X amount, and fixing/recall cost is $2X. Lose money, or kill people?

[Ender]

I 'spose I ought to think of a better scenario.


hmm.  oooh, I make chapstick that whens to explode under really rare conditions.  Three people die and I get sued.  Let's say it'd cost me $100k in lawsuits and $200k to fix the problem, which would I do?  The $100k cause that's the most beneficial.

No, CrAz3d, the moral thing to do is the $200k.

I admit there is some controversy over medicines in similar situations. For example, I recently saw a TV show where a medicine had a toxin in it and the FBI suggested that the drug company recall all of its drugs. But then the company could be A) taking life-saving drugs away from people who need them and B) since it was a significant source of medicinal research, the damage of such a recall and its publicity would financially impede the research which can in effect prevent ailing people from getting due cures.

But chapstick doesn't save anyones lives, and chapstick research won't either, so there's no excuse for taking the cheaper route at the expense of others' lives. More generally, it's immoral to make money if it puts people's lives at risk and does nothing else but pad your couch cushions.

[CrAz3D]

I 'spose I ought to think of a better scenario.


hmm.  oooh, I make chapstick that whens to explode under really rare conditions.  Three people die and I get sued.  Let's say it'd cost me $100k in lawsuits and $200k to fix the problem, which would I do?  The $100k cause that's the most beneficial.

No, CrAz3d, the moral thing to do is the $200k.

This isn't about morality ... it's about a cost benefit analysis.

[Ender]

Omg. Are you pulling my leg, or do you not understand that moral transgressions are a cost? Either way, you're being annoying.

[CrAz3D]

Morals are subjective.

OR, one could argue that in a society with an exponentially expanding population we should value people less because there are so many of them and the earth can't support so many.

[Sidoh]

Morals are subjective.

That's true, but so is the value of money.  Plus, I think you'd have a hard time finding someone who doesn't find murder morally objectionable.  When you're operating in the public, it also becomes necessary to take how your actions will be viewed into consideration.  In your example, you may lose revenue because people find your actions morally repulsive.

OR, one could argue that in a society with an exponentially expanding population we should value people less because there are so many of them and the earth can't support so many.

Do you really think that a growing population devalues human life?

[CrAz3D]

I personally don't but others do and you can't say they're wrong because it's subjective.