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

51–60 of 70 posts

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

#51

Post by primitur »

confluence wrote: post #39
michaelgrafl wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's some disturbing shit you've written there. You're disclaimer makes it even worse. I don't know what would be a constructive thing to say, except maybe that being a decent human being is based on believe and conviction, not logic. You either decide that every human being has infinite value (if you're inclined to attach a value to a human being), or you try to find reasons to diminish someone's value by slicing…

Oh I'm sorry - logic is clearly subordinate to fuzzy terms such as "belief" and "conviction" - I mean it's not like many bad things have come at the hands of belief or conviction - not at all. Logic has nothing to do with bringing the world out of poverty - people's gut reaction should instead be relied upon to make life or death decisions - Numbers? What's that? I mean there were the crusades - but really that was t…

Your position is disturbing because it allows for one human being to degrade another quite freely without guilt. That is morally heinous.

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

#52

Post by confluence »

primitur wrote: post #51
confluence wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I'm sorry - logic is clearly subordinate to fuzzy terms such as "belief" and "conviction" - I mean it's not like many bad things have come at the hands of belief or conviction - not at all. Logic has nothing to do with bringing the world out of poverty - people's gut reaction should instead be relied upon to make life or death decisions - Numbers? What's that? I mean there were the crusades - but really that was t…

Your position is disturbing because it allows for one human being to degrade another quite freely without guilt. That is morally heinous.

What! They don't do this already! Mind blown!

Have you seen human history?

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

#53

Post by andyjohnson0 »

confluence wrote: post #30
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't come to the "exact same conclusion" that she has. You've come to a different conclusion that just appears to you to be the same because it has the potential for the same outcome. (Edit: added "potential for the same outcome")

How is it different? Both actions amount to the same thing don't they - protect and help the poor to make us all better off. The reasons may be different - but the outcome is the same, isn't it? If both theories produce equivalent actions, then the theories are equivalent, no?

Making judgments about theories or actions only by comparing the outcomes is called Consequentialism [1]. I'm not saying it is always wrong, but it is just one of a range of frameworks that can be applied.

Applying consequentialism to ethical judgments about people is often problematic. There are various criticisms listed in [1], but they are kind of theoretical. Let me give a practical example instead. If we allow (as you say) that "protect and help the poor to make us all better off" is the best way to form a judgement about this issue because it turns out that it actually does make us all better off, then what do you do if it emerges that protecting some sub-group of the poor (say, poor people in South America) actually makes us worse off? Are they out of luck, or do you revise your judgement even though, in your terms, it was correct?

Basically, this limited world-view can instrumentalise people and is vulnerable to dangerous unforeseen consequences that lead to real human suffering.

And I'm done. Unit tests to write.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

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

#54

Post by jonah »

gjm11 wrote: post #40
jonah wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They definitely do good work in many areas. However, on one hand they work to reduce deaths from diseases[0] while on the other, people are just a drain on natural resources.[1] It's not consistent. [0] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/malaria/Pages/home.aspx etc. [1] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/infographics/Pages/family-pla...

The document you cite as [1] does not, in fact, say anything even slightly like "people are just a drain on natural resources". Here are the first few things it says: (1) "Family planning saves the lives of mothers and infants." (2) It "can significantly improve the health of women and their families." (3) "It can save millions of lives per year." The page claims -- I don't know whether it's correct, but actually tha…

I wasn't trying to summarize anything - I just pointed out something that struck me as dissonant while looking at that info graphic.

Personally, I think you're sounding defensive.

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

#55

Post by pron »

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…

Your reasoning is pretty ridiculous. There are many things that cannot quantified. How would you quantify the contribution of a person who's done a lot of bad, say murdered some people, but whose actions inspire policy makers to change their policies for the better? Or how would you quantify the life of an african baby, dead at the age of 6 months, that inspires rich Americans to buy anti-malaria drugs? Or a horrendous event that results in a work of literature of such beauty that it lasts for centuries? Or some random, unknown person, dead for millennia, whose skeletal remains teaches us about human evolution? Some things require a completely different way of thinking from a data-driven, "rational" perspective, but to put it in your terms, "life" is such a complex, intractable, system, that quite often defies any kind of "left-brain" analysis.

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

#56

Post by zerostar07 »

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…

have to disagree:

- life of youths is more valuable: ancient tribes will say the opposite: they routinely sacrificed their children to gods, not so their elders, who were considered valuable for their wisdom.

- Money is a means to buy services and goods regardless of their moral value. You can buy hookers, drugs, murderers, malware and other life-wasters. I think you couldn't be more wrong about this.

- "Good" has not been defined yet. Also, there is no rule that good people earn the most money; not even close

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

#57

Post by michaelgrafl »

confluence wrote: post #39
michaelgrafl wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's some disturbing shit you've written there. You're disclaimer makes it even worse. I don't know what would be a constructive thing to say, except maybe that being a decent human being is based on believe and conviction, not logic. You either decide that every human being has infinite value (if you're inclined to attach a value to a human being), or you try to find reasons to diminish someone's value by slicing…

Oh I'm sorry - logic is clearly subordinate to fuzzy terms such as "belief" and "conviction" - I mean it's not like many bad things have come at the hands of belief or conviction - not at all. Logic has nothing to do with bringing the world out of poverty - people's gut reaction should instead be relied upon to make life or death decisions - Numbers? What's that? I mean there were the crusades - but really that was t…

No, logic is not subordinate to anything. That's you putting numbers on stuff again.

I think you try to draw the term "fuzzy" into a negative light here because you have trouble dealing with ambivalence. Then you go absurd and use things like Crusades! and Holocaust! which I clearly wasn't talking about (because blind faith has as little to do with reason as applying quantitative analysis to every question in the universe, and I was following up those terms with what my actual, concrete conviction is made up of) in order to discredit my whole point without trying to understand where I'm coming from.

You're wondering why I find the things you've written disturbing. It's because you put a price on human beings in reply to an article that's about altruism. I'm convinced (WATCH OUT, FUZZINESS AHEAD!!!) by my feelings of compassion that helping people in need does not need a reason beyond It's The Right Thing To Do. I trust my instincts on that one, and I think any attempt to make an altruistic act appear logical is ugly and coarse. And take note that I don't equate “logical” with “reasonable”. Especially not in a case like this.

Again, your trying to put the practices of fear mongering institutions like the various churches and the Nazis in the same category as basic altruism based on the fact that all of these somehow involve belief and conviction (which can be logical, depending on the quality of abstraction you apply) is lazy and disingenuous.

My replies to you probably convey a more hostile tone than I feel comfortable with, and it's kind of random that I'm writing all of this to you, who I only have a vague idea about, in effect addressing many of those I put in the same category as you right now. I would rather discuss something like that in person to take the edge off of it. But I can't shake the feeling (and my impression might very well be wrong) that you've developed some kind of arrogance because you've detected at an early age that you're very intelligent, and how pleasing it is to figure out an axiomatic system and use this enlightenment to your advantage.

That has its place. But that place is not when dealing with the welfare of humanity. I do not object your conclusions. I object the path that led you to them.

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

#58

Post by primitur »

confluence wrote: post #52
primitur wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your position is disturbing because it allows for one human being to degrade another quite freely without guilt. That is morally heinous.

What! They don't do this already! Mind blown! Have you seen human history?

So are you going to change that about yourself, or are you going to prolong it in your particular corner of the universe?

Humans are equally borne into the world weak and helpless, with but a day of survival unless they gain help from others, immediately, for a few years. This equalizes everyone, in terms of need. We all need at least a decade of help, if not more, before we can help others and help ourselves.

So, how does it help, in any way, to consider that babies born in 'lesser conditions' are economically worth less than babies born 'in luck, elsewhere'? It doesn't, at all, help one bit .. but your position does, instead, prolong the righteous justification for continued hatred of ones fellow man on the basis of their inferiority, economic, mental, culturally or otherwise.

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

#59

Post by confluence »

primitur wrote: post #58
confluence wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What! They don't do this already! Mind blown! Have you seen human history?

So are you going to change that about yourself, or are you going to prolong it in your particular corner of the universe? Humans are equally borne into the world weak and helpless, with but a day of survival unless they gain help from others, immediately, for a few years. This equalizes everyone, in terms of need. We all need at least a decade of help, if not more, before we can help others and help ourselves. So, ho…

Wtf. Can you read? I said the exact opposite.

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

#60

Post by pron »

Swizec wrote: post #44
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…

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…

Why would you need to establish that at all? It is not a matter of fact, but a statement that serves as the basis of a moral standpoint. You can either choose to believe it, or not.

As for Ted Bundy vs. Mother Theresa - ignoring the extremely complex philosophical question of the value of life - do you seriously think that's what Ms. Gates was implying? A philanthropist working to save lives in the third world says "all lives are equal", and your response is, "why are you comparing Ted Bundy to Mother Theresa"? Don't take everything so literally. This isn't math class.

Post reply on HN