Ok let’s try. From the most desirable to the least desirable: 4,3,2,1,8,6,7.
Both 4 and 3 will help 100 poor families so have the priority. 2 and 1 will help one poor family so have the priority compared to the last three options. 8 and 6 will help more people compared to 7. The rest is only a quantity difference.
We do disagree I guess. However you define your utility function, 8 is worse than 1. I find this very disturbing. How did you arrive at your conclusions (it seems to me naive QALY calculations would place 8 as a clearly better option than 1).
This is my reasoning: if we assume that the middle class families have a stable economic situation, and if we assume that they have enough money to obtain food, heath care, a good home, instruction for their children etc. while the poor family’s members don’t have this comforts and are suffering hunger and diseases for that, then the poor family has the priority in my system of values: I could easily stand the lack of a villa with swimming pool for 10,000 lives if this would make me avoid a miserable life. (I think that we can simplify my ethic as a Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.) Of course if the middle class families would donate lots of money to poor families, my answer would change.
But there are ten thousand middle class families, and just one poor family? Among those ten thousand, what about the chance that the money e.g. provides necessary funds to:
Send their children to Ivy League schools.
Provide necessary treatment for debilitating illnesses.
Pay off debt.
Otherwise drastically improve their quality of life?
Good points I admit to have not considered. I live in a country where health care and instruction can be afforded by middle class families and as I have already written I assumed that their economical situation was stable. If we consider this factors then my answer will change.
Even if they have stable economic condition, I still expect any sensible utilitarian calculation to prefer helping 10,000 middle class families as opposed to one poor family. How exactly did you calculate helping one poor family as better?
As I tried to express in my post, I think that here are different “levels of life quality”. For me, people in the lower levels, have the priority. I adopt utilitarianism only when I have to choose what is better in the same level.
The post’s purpose wasn’t to convince someone that my values are right. I only want to show throught some examples that, even though some limits are nebulous, we can agree that things that are very distant from the edge can be associated to two different layer.
I only want to add that switching from one level to another has the highest value. So saving people who are fine is still important, because dying would make them fall from a level X to 0.
Order the following outcomes in terms of their desirability. They are all alternative outcomes, and possess equal opportunity cost.
$1,000,000 to one poor family.
$10,000,000 to one poor family.
$1,000,000 (each) to 100 poor families.
$10,000,000 (each) to 100 poor families.
$10,000,000 (each) to 1000 middle class families.
$10,000,000 (each) to 10,000 middle class families.
$100,000,000 (each) to 1000 middle class families.
$100,000,000 (each) to 10,000 middle class families.
Assume negligible inflation results due to the distribution.
Ok let’s try. From the most desirable to the least desirable: 4,3,2,1,8,6,7.
Both 4 and 3 will help 100 poor families so have the priority. 2 and 1 will help one poor family so have the priority compared to the last three options. 8 and 6 will help more people compared to 7. The rest is only a quantity difference.
We do disagree I guess. However you define your utility function, 8 is worse than 1. I find this very disturbing. How did you arrive at your conclusions (it seems to me naive QALY calculations would place 8 as a clearly better option than 1).
This is my reasoning: if we assume that the middle class families have a stable economic situation, and if we assume that they have enough money to obtain food, heath care, a good home, instruction for their children etc. while the poor family’s members don’t have this comforts and are suffering hunger and diseases for that, then the poor family has the priority in my system of values: I could easily stand the lack of a villa with swimming pool for 10,000 lives if this would make me avoid a miserable life. (I think that we can simplify my ethic as a Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.) Of course if the middle class families would donate lots of money to poor families, my answer would change.
But there are ten thousand middle class families, and just one poor family? Among those ten thousand, what about the chance that the money e.g. provides necessary funds to:
Send their children to Ivy League schools.
Provide necessary treatment for debilitating illnesses.
Pay off debt.
Otherwise drastically improve their quality of life?
Good points I admit to have not considered. I live in a country where health care and instruction can be afforded by middle class families and as I have already written I assumed that their economical situation was stable. If we consider this factors then my answer will change.
Even if they have stable economic condition, I still expect any sensible utilitarian calculation to prefer helping 10,000 middle class families as opposed to one poor family. How exactly did you calculate helping one poor family as better?
As I tried to express in my post, I think that here are different “levels of life quality”. For me, people in the lower levels, have the priority. I adopt utilitarianism only when I have to choose what is better in the same level.
The post’s purpose wasn’t to convince someone that my values are right. I only want to show throught some examples that, even though some limits are nebulous, we can agree that things that are very distant from the edge can be associated to two different layer.
I only want to add that switching from one level to another has the highest value. So saving people who are fine is still important, because dying would make them fall from a level X to 0.