It seems to me that the dust-specks example depends on the following being true: both dust-specks and 50 years of torture can be precisely quantified.
What is the justification for this belief? I find it hard to see any way of avoiding the conclusion that some harms may be compared, as in A < B (A=1 person/1 dustspeck, B=1 person/torture), but that does not imply that we can assign precise values to A and B and then determine how many A are equivalent to one B.
Why do some people believe that we can precisely say how much worse the torture of 1 individual is than dust specks in the eye of 1 individual? Why are different harms necessarily commensurable? Any pointers to standard arguments or more information about this is much appreciated.
It seems to me that the dust-specks example depends on the following being true: both dust-specks and 50 years of torture can be precisely quantified.
What is the justification for this belief? I find it hard to see any way of avoiding the conclusion that some harms may be compared, as in A < B (A=1 person/1 dustspeck, B=1 person/torture), but that does not imply that we can assign precise values to A and B and then determine how many A are equivalent to one B.
Why do some people believe that we can precisely say how much worse the torture of 1 individual is than dust specks in the eye of 1 individual? Why are different harms necessarily commensurable? Any pointers to standard arguments or more information about this is much appreciated.