Malevolent liberty or benevolent tyranny
1Liner
: Malevolent liberty is better than benevolent tyranny? The answer defines whether you value ends or means, actions or outcomes.
|
|
The problem for me isn't just whether the ends justifies the means -- but who chooses what happens?
Self Driving Cars will make the choice for you[edit | edit source]
A kid runs in the street from a hidden position. The car must choose:
- (a) kill the kid
- (b) swerve into a tree and probably kill the driver/passengers but save the kid
- (c) swerve into oncoming traffic and hope the other side avoids you and it doesn't kill the people in both cars.
Which is the right answer?
The lowest of the lawyers are excited at the thought of the first accident with these cases. If there’s no pre-defined precedent they get to invent ethics (and liability) based on the gullibility of the first Jury. Does the grieving Mom get millions from the evil/rich car company, because a car's computer chose to save the life of the driver? With people, we think, “accidents happen”, but since this was programmed in advance, it’s a conscious decision.
| NOTE: To me the proper answer is have it a software selector. The driver is not the cause of the outcome, the kid is. But many are going to advocate/require that the state gets to hard code the choice. The companies will want to remove that choice, because they don't want people to think about it. |
Right to die[edit | edit source]
End of life (right to die / euthanasia), abortion, vaccinations anyone?
Right now, we take away the choices of individuals involved for euthanasia. We assume that life is so precious, that even people that want to die, should not be allowed to. But what kind of rights do you have if you don't have the right to make your own health (life and death) choices?
Part of that is because old people can be manipulated, and we don’t trust families who may have a vested economical interest in the elderly dying to make those decisions. But a lot is just historical superstition and biases: God makes those decisions, not mortals. Thus we criminalize dying with dignity (as if there is such a thing). But for me the question isn't the choice of whether they're going to die : that's a given. The choice is when/how and who gets to control that.
Abortion[edit | edit source]
I support the choice of an individual to murder potential life, but not actual life. e.g. until the baby is viable outside the womb (say 16-20 or so weeks), I might not like it, but I think the Woman gets the choice until viability. At viability that’s not longer a potential life, but something that could self-sustain, thus killing it at that point, is clearly murder and not just lost potential. But I understand it’s a grey area, and others disagree -- thus legally, it should be up to states to decide for themselves, and not other states to force their will upon them.
Conclusion[edit | edit source]
In all these cases it's still not whether one is more than many, it is whether we leave the choice to individuals or some authority. I lean towards individuals... mostly. You might think you know more about what's in their own good, but that's you forcing your values on them.
I often agree with the mathematics... just not the ethics.
I would rather let people make the wrong choices for themselves and learn and grow from them (as can others/society), than to force people to do something they don't agree with (even if it's for their own good). In the latter case, they and society don't grow... or more accurately, they only grow to resent the system/voters that took their liberty/choices away. And we become a more divided society.
Death Panels[edit | edit source]
Template:StripCategory2 • [0 items]
🔗 More[edit source]