Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

blog.minming.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#41

Post by mikedmiked »

kaptain wrote: post #18
confluence wrote: post #13

All lives don't have equal current value, but the do have equal eventual value - I'll explain that in a moment (please note: I mean financial/economic value as I believe the term "moral/intrinsic" value to be so vague and undefined as to be completely useless as a thought model or reasoning tool - I understand what Melinda means). This is empirically correct - a poor person in Africa is worth less than a rich America…

Melinda Gates wasn't talking about economic value. I find it difficult to believe that most HN'rs take her statement to mean economic value since, as most people have been pointing out, all lives don't have equivalent financial worth. The rest of your point, I think, is a very interesting way to look at the value of human life, but it is a crude way of evaluating the worth of humanity purely in the context of financi…

(justification to read my post here: at the end I argue richer people have higher moral value!)

Many of us think its 'brave' and 'correct' to say "all lives are equal value" in the moral sense. Its a 'sexy' thought to have as it seems liberal and its simple, but it is ultimately wrong.

Our actions are what define us, so a person who performs good/selfless actions that benefit others should be defined as higher value than a selfish murderer/rapist.

If lives were equal value then taking the life of a child would be equally as bad as taking the life of an 80 year old - but most people do not think that way.

Your value (in the moral sense) should simply be a function how much good you provide to the world. This leads to the difficult issue where because we can in fact buy "good" (by buying anti-malaria nets for children for £5 a pop) you find that those born into wealth have a higher capacity to perform "good" and therefore, on average, have a higher moral value by this definition.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#42

Post by EzGraphs »

zerostar07 wrote: post #38
confluence wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully understand what she means (I'm not an idiot) - and I think the way people describe "morals" is very vague to the point of being useless, as correct human actions can be easily enforced using other means (for example we have laws not to kill each other - Why? Well you could say it's the moral thing to do - and of course people say that. But it's also such a waste - everyone would live in fear and nothing would…

You seem to be following an utilitarian moral theory, others may propose a consequentialist or hedonistic or religious assessments of human value. The one thing to remember about ethics is there are no absolute moral rules.

The one thing to remember about ethics is there are no absolute moral rules.

Is that an absolute? ;)

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#43

Post by confluence »

pserwylo wrote: post #37

I agree with the sentiment about all lives being equal. That is why I enjoyed challenging myself to think about it purely from an economic perspective one day. We were on the plane, and the guy next to us was studying "humanitarian economics". It is somewhat related to the issues that the gates foundation has to think about when distributing their funds. There was some curious dilemmas you need to face, and most of t…

Actuaries need to do the same things all the time e.g. - probabilistic value of remaining life for life insurance settlement/pricing.

Yes it feels weird to discuss these things - but it doesn't make you an evil person or anything - life insurance must be priced, taxes distributed and money donated.

The problem with "hands up in the air - everything is precious!" thinking is that you can't make any decisions. If you assume that - all your money should be flooding Africa.

You'll notice that this isn't the case.

You'll also notice that people only pay lip service to their morals - but they never back it up with cash - and that's where actuaries and economists come in.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#44

Post by Swizec »

kaptain wrote: post #18
confluence wrote: post #13

All lives don't have equal current value, but the do have equal eventual value - I'll explain that in a moment (please note: I mean financial/economic value as I believe the term "moral/intrinsic" value to be so vague and undefined as to be completely useless as a thought model or reasoning tool - I understand what Melinda means). This is empirically correct - a poor person in Africa is worth less than a rich America…

Melinda Gates wasn't talking about economic value. I find it difficult to believe that most HN'rs take her statement to mean economic value since, as most people have been pointing out, all lives don't have equivalent financial worth. The rest of your point, I think, is a very interesting way to look at the value of human life, but it is a crude way of evaluating the worth of humanity purely in the context of financi…

What is the value of life? Clearly we find the idea of financial value just a tad too cynical.

Do we have any other measures? Something we can use to establish that all lives are in fact equally valuable?

Also, as soon as we start claiming all life to be equally valuable we get into the moral issue of comparing somebody like Mother Theresa to someone like Ted Bundy and saying they were both equal in terms of value. I doubt many people would agree.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#45

Post by confluence »

zerostar07 wrote: post #38
confluence wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully understand what she means (I'm not an idiot) - and I think the way people describe "morals" is very vague to the point of being useless, as correct human actions can be easily enforced using other means (for example we have laws not to kill each other - Why? Well you could say it's the moral thing to do - and of course people say that. But it's also such a waste - everyone would live in fear and nothing would…

You seem to be following an utilitarian moral theory, others may propose a consequentialist or hedonistic or religious assessments of human value. The one thing to remember about ethics is there are no absolute moral rules.

Agreed. Didn't know there was a name to it :D.

But I'm always careful with utilitarian theory - it's so easy to get wrong - if any one of your assumptions are wrong. That's why I try to make sure that the final result complies with other theories (empathy etc.).

Playing with value theories is like playing with fire.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#46

Post by Qwertious »

mikedmiked wrote: post #41
kaptain wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Melinda Gates wasn't talking about economic value. I find it difficult to believe that most HN'rs take her statement to mean economic value since, as most people have been pointing out, all lives don't have equivalent financial worth. The rest of your point, I think, is a very interesting way to look at the value of human life, but it is a crude way of evaluating the worth of humanity purely in the context of financi…

(justification to read my post here: at the end I argue richer people have higher moral value!) Many of us think its 'brave' and 'correct' to say "all lives are equal value" in the moral sense. Its a 'sexy' thought to have as it seems liberal and its simple, but it is ultimately wrong. Our actions are what define us, so a person who performs good/selfless actions that benefit others should be defined as higher value…

More than that, if all lives are worth something, some people are worth more than others, even if purely because some people can improve others' lives MORE.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#47

Post by pingou »

I think the idea that all lives have equal values, while it sounds good, is paradoxical. If a life has a potential to save plenty of other lives (for example : healthcare worker, great scientist on the verge of discovering a new cure, engineer working on a more efficient way to get drinking water), doesn't that mean that their lives are worth more ? On the other hand I can't help myself thinking that a surgeon isn't worth more than an unemployed guy who does nothing except watching TV (for example), moral isn't always about logic.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#48

Post by digeridoo »

mikedmiked wrote: post #41
kaptain wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Melinda Gates wasn't talking about economic value. I find it difficult to believe that most HN'rs take her statement to mean economic value since, as most people have been pointing out, all lives don't have equivalent financial worth. The rest of your point, I think, is a very interesting way to look at the value of human life, but it is a crude way of evaluating the worth of humanity purely in the context of financi…

(justification to read my post here: at the end I argue richer people have higher moral value!) Many of us think its 'brave' and 'correct' to say "all lives are equal value" in the moral sense. Its a 'sexy' thought to have as it seems liberal and its simple, but it is ultimately wrong. Our actions are what define us, so a person who performs good/selfless actions that benefit others should be defined as higher value…

> If lives were equal value then taking the life of a child would be equally as bad as taking the life of an 80 year old - but most people do not think that way.

?

So is murder of an 80-year old worse, or murder of a child? I'm confused, because I don't really think that way.

I'm also not buying into this self-obsessed view of "value". Americans and Europeans do more damage to the world per capita than anyone else in terms of of energy consumption, pollution, and creating economic inequality. Their charitability does not really make up for it.

For me the only distinction is that I value people I know more than people I don't know. However, everyone is someone I could get to know.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#49

Post by adaml_623 »

jonah wrote: post #31
adaml_623 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are misquoting her. She is in favour of contraception. That gives a woman control over whether her body will become pregnant. I think you should elaborate. Your view is not very clear.

Not really. Birth control reduces the number of people born. I'm not saying anything about motives or whether it's the right thing to do or not, rather simply pointing it out. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/jul/11/ric... http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/Search.aspx?meta=MDCont...

Slightly deeper philosophical point I think you're getting at there but I think reducing the number of people born is not equivalent to not valuing a life.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#50

Post by zerostar07 »

EzGraphs wrote: post #42
zerostar07 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be following an utilitarian moral theory, others may propose a consequentialist or hedonistic or religious assessments of human value. The one thing to remember about ethics is there are no absolute moral rules.

The one thing to remember about ethics is there are no absolute moral rules. Is that an absolute? ;)

Unless you are a fundamentalist or some other sort of "-ist", yes.
Post reply on HN