Elaborate on 3)
dstudioscode
Karma: −37
Well in this context, you pretty much said its guaranteed that another person would have saved such person’s life. I don’t really care about “building character” and whatnot considering this is about consequentialism, not about displaying virtue. Regarding saving money for hospital, you are saying that donating blood leads to hospitals to not have to use extraneous measures (that are expensive) to get blood, right?
Technically the live-saving surgery part was told by the person who drew my blood.
What’s the point of donating blood if I am not saving lives though?
Does that mean there is no value in blood/platelet donation? Does it matter if I do not donate?
Also, it is said that life-saving surgeries have been postponed due to lack of blood/platelets. I guess it is hard to say if the postponement results in death.Furthermore, I’m not entirely sure the shelf-life of blood/platelets is even long enough for there to be an importation from another country (ig it depends on the country).
And also, why do blood donation groups then incentivize blood donation quite excessively, if its not that big of a problem right now?
Yeah, stopping one individual customer is indeed negligible towards cartels. However, I am still confused about whether I should get involved for the own person’s good or not. Cocaine is very addictive, but being in prison for a felony can be pretty bad too (which is why some people argue for lenient laws towards drug users).
Furthermore, you bring up a good point that I don’t know how to report it. I don’t even know the person’s name and I would feel awkward asking for said person’s name from a friend that will ask another friend for the name.On one hand, since it is not my business, I am biased to remain uninvolved—but I’m not sure if that is the correct utilitarian response. If I can stop a coke addiction, I can effectively save a life (without donating like 5000 dollars to a charity).
Edit:
Also coke is pretty bad for the environment as well.
There also lies the issue of whether u can blame consumers of unethical companies. Companies like Nestle have done horrible terrible stuff, and some people eat factory-farmed meat. Yet, I don’t do anything to stop said consumers (though there is nothing I can do too).
Why wouldn’t it be more effective? If there is a shortage, and blood is needed, wouldn’t donating once save a life? Apparently, one blood donation can like affect like 3 people. If there is a shortage, lives are being saved. This is much easier—and cheaper—than paying 5000 bucks to Give Directly.
[Question] Should I Report A Cocaine User?
Sources:
https://www.redcross.org/about-us/news-and-events/press-release/2024/red-cross-declares-emergency-blood-shortage-calls-for-donations-during-national-blood-donor-month.html
Furthermore, I talked to a person who took my blood. Can’t provide a source on that, but I am guessing the person who took my blood wouldn’t lie just like that.
Probably The Current Most Effective Altruism: Donating Blood/Platelets/Plasma
In a hypothetical scenario then, you probably should save the adult’s life over the child’s, even if the adult protests for the sake of the child.
It does lead to the problem though that then a fetus should also be considered more valuable because it will eventually become a baby.
Yet most mothers seem to value the lives of babies over their own lives.
Baby-killing seems to be a worse crime than killing an adult.
Even people who support abortion are horrified by infanticide.
If babies aren’t persons, is Peter Singer right in that its not wrong to kill a baby 30 days after birth—especially if it is disabled?
I mean I guess the problem is that commonsense morality can sort of contradict. I feel like most mothers would sacrifice themselves to save their babies (and this is not just some Harry Potter thing). Sure, it may indeed be due to hormones and not rationality. Still, one can argue from intuition that there must be a reason to value the lives of babies over just simple sperm.
I mean most people that support abortion would be horrified of infanticide.
I’m not sure of this, but baby-killing itself generally seems to be a worse crime than killing an adult (though I guess it may seem so due to the sheer unneccessariness of it).
Well, there probably would exist a threshold though right? I feel like maybe a baby is worth less than an adult, but there are probably so many babies until it equals a woman. Same with animals (though the threshold is more of a mathematical nightmare).
Furthermore, I agree overall lifespan != quality of life. However, I’m saying it in the term of I guess “happiness” whatever that is in this context. The baby isn’t very sentient yet but will live a good life if it is allowed to continue living. Although the woman’s life ending is sad, the total amount and aggregation of “happiness” would probably be increased if you saved the baby.
[Question] Whose life matters more—a baby’s or an adult’s?
I have asked a question previously that you have not responded to yet:
“Does a positive obligation exist to procreate?
While controversies surround total utilitarianism and the Repugnant Conclusion, what about the ethical implications of sperm donation? Given that it typically entails negligible costs and results in creating content lives in developed nations, could sperm donation be considered a moral duty? Despite concerns about overpopulation and its impact on climate change, could individual actions be akin to a Prisoner’s Dilemma, where meaningful change requires large-scale government intervention and individual actions do not matter at all on a large scale?
Regarding meat consumption, when does the act of creating life outweigh the potential for negative consequences, such as dietary choices? If refraining from creating life is justified on the basis of potential meat consumption (as seen in vegan antinatalist perspectives), does it logically follow that it is morally acceptable to kill non-vegans due to their meat consumption?
Finally, you said that saving a life is more important than creating one, though creating one has some relevance. So how many lives created is equal to one life saved? What is the break-even point?
Thanks.”
Does a positive obligation exist to procreate?
While controversies surround total utilitarianism and the Repugnant Conclusion, what about the ethical implications of sperm donation? Given that it typically entails negligible costs and results in creating content lives in developed nations, could sperm donation be considered a moral duty? Despite concerns about overpopulation and its impact on climate change, could individual actions be akin to a Prisoner’s Dilemma, where meaningful change requires large-scale government intervention and individual actions do not matter at all on a large scale?
Regarding meat consumption, when does the act of creating life outweigh the potential for negative consequences, such as dietary choices? If refraining from creating life is justified on the basis of potential meat consumption (as seen in vegan antinatalist perspectives), does it logically follow that it is morally acceptable to kill non-vegans due to their meat consumption?
Finally, you said that saving a life is more important than creating one, though creating one has some relevance. So how many lives created is equal to one life saved? What is the break-even point?
Thanks.
Yeah, I know it is not really related to EA but I need to talk with consequentialist like members. Its interesting, because I thought it would be my moral obligation to report it—less so to save some person’s life more so to reduce funding for drug cartels. But it seems majority of the comments are telling me to not get involved—which is just fine with me because I would feel awkward getting involved