Here’s something that, if it’s not a frequently asked question, ought to be one. What do you mean by “state of the world”—more specifically, evaluated at what time, and to what degree of precision?
Some utilitarians argue that we should give money to poorer people because it will help them much more than the same amount will help us. An obvious question is “how do you know”? You don’t typically know the consequences that a given action will have over time, and there may be different consequences depending on what “state of the world” you consider.
The immediate difference is that someone has a little more money and you have a little less, but it becomes a much more complicated problem when you start thinking of longer term consequences. If I give that person money, will they use it well or will they spend it on drink; if we send aid to poor countries, will it help the people who need it or be diverted; will these countries become dependent on foreign aid, destroying an autonomy which is more precious than money; etc.
The organ donation example is interesting in this regard. You have worked out one particular subset of the consequences (“the lives of a thousand people a year”), but what guarantees do you have that the proposed opt-out system wouldn’t have other consequences, in the short, medium or long term, that eventually turn out to outweigh these positive consequences?
Here’s something that, if it’s not a frequently asked question, ought to be one. What do you mean by “state of the world”—more specifically, evaluated at what time, and to what degree of precision?
Some utilitarians argue that we should give money to poorer people because it will help them much more than the same amount will help us. An obvious question is “how do you know”? You don’t typically know the consequences that a given action will have over time, and there may be different consequences depending on what “state of the world” you consider.
The immediate difference is that someone has a little more money and you have a little less, but it becomes a much more complicated problem when you start thinking of longer term consequences. If I give that person money, will they use it well or will they spend it on drink; if we send aid to poor countries, will it help the people who need it or be diverted; will these countries become dependent on foreign aid, destroying an autonomy which is more precious than money; etc.
The organ donation example is interesting in this regard. You have worked out one particular subset of the consequences (“the lives of a thousand people a year”), but what guarantees do you have that the proposed opt-out system wouldn’t have other consequences, in the short, medium or long term, that eventually turn out to outweigh these positive consequences?