(a) “All lives have equal value” or (b) “All lives are morally relevant.”
“There are more or less desirable states of existence.”
1b is probably enough in most cases. I’ve heard of people who value people in their own country at least 100 times as highly as people outside, but that seems mind-bogglingly extreme. So long as this differential doesn’t reach the same orders of magnitude that exist between the cost-effectiveness estimates of interventions in the opposite direction, EA is still the forcible conclusion.
1a is stolen from the Gates Foundation. Does “lives” include animal lives?
The behaviors that follow when you accept:
(a) “All lives have equal value” or (b) “All lives are morally relevant.”
“There are more or less desirable states of existence.”
1b is probably enough in most cases. I’ve heard of people who value people in their own country at least 100 times as highly as people outside, but that seems mind-bogglingly extreme. So long as this differential doesn’t reach the same orders of magnitude that exist between the cost-effectiveness estimates of interventions in the opposite direction, EA is still the forcible conclusion.
1a is stolen from the Gates Foundation. Does “lives” include animal lives?