Awww, crappity-crap.
I screwed up the example two entries ago. Here's a modified version of it, just to get things straight. You can thank Matt's copout answer for the revision.
There are two people in poverty and we can only help one. Person A was a rich aristocrat who pissed all his money away on the ponies. Person B was also rich, but through no fault of his own lost his money and is now in poverty. A, however, has undergone a character transformation and has reformed his pissing-money-away disposition. Assume that A and B are the same age with the same future life prospects, and if they were to be given assistance, they both would achieve the same level of anti-poverty (in other words, no danger of backsliding--which is the significance of A's reform). No other facts are relevant. Do you think we should: 1) help A; 2) help B; 3) flip a coin?
There. That oughtta do it. Please comment on this example.
There are two people in poverty and we can only help one. Person A was a rich aristocrat who pissed all his money away on the ponies. Person B was also rich, but through no fault of his own lost his money and is now in poverty. A, however, has undergone a character transformation and has reformed his pissing-money-away disposition. Assume that A and B are the same age with the same future life prospects, and if they were to be given assistance, they both would achieve the same level of anti-poverty (in other words, no danger of backsliding--which is the significance of A's reform). No other facts are relevant. Do you think we should: 1) help A; 2) help B; 3) flip a coin?
There. That oughtta do it. Please comment on this example.
posted by dd0031 at 1:49 PM
9 Comments:
I think the fact that it's A's own fault for being where he is has a slight intuitive pull towards B. But I'm worried that this intuition isn't trustworthy, because I think the whole notion of dessert is majorly fishy.
MATT!! DAMMIT!! You're weasling again. The example is, it's the first guy's fault, not the second guy's fault. I was packing facts about desert into the example. So, I can take it that you're for B?
I'll take "flip a coin." Or is that wrong?
are either of the persons a woman? because i would pick whichever one is hotter. if they are both guys, i think it should come down to some kind of test or physical challenge. make them write an essay on why they think they should receive help.
OR, better yet, tell them that, to receive your aid, they will have to give up a body part, like a foot or an ear or something. and then see if either of them are still interested.
and if they are BOTH still interested, flip the coin. but make it a doubleheaded coin. make person A flip and make person B call it in the air.
Aw, dammit.
Okay, if you're stipulating that Person A really, truly, metaphysically deserved what he got, then I guess I'm voting for B.
I think they should flip a coin.
R
I'm still gonna go with B. Even setting aside questions of whether A *deserves* his poverty, the problem seems to be as follows: you can't equalize future opportunity since the money is indivisible, so is the token gesture (haha) of flipping a coin an adequate proxy?
No, not when you can retroactively equalize A and B's past opportunity by giving B the money.
Evan -
That's an ingenious response. Wrong, though. I'm incomfortable with the idea of 'equalizing past opportunity'. You might mean something like this: because B didn't have the opportunity to gamble away his money (or keep it, or whatever), and A did, B ought to be given the opportunity later because he didn't have it in the first place. You're working on the assumption, I assume, that equality of lifetime capabilities is a reasonable moral goal. Unfortunately, I don't think it goes far enough. We don't merely want equality of lifetime capabilities, we want the metric to actually be the welfare. Unless you can give me some sort of argument for taking capabilities only.
Post a Comment
<< Home