Thought Experiment

[Azuma Hazuki]

I have a question I'd like to throw out here and see what people think.

Most people will say there is no difference between killing someone yourself vs. hiring a hitman, and it's not hard to see why.

But, how much difference is there between killing someone, hiring a hitman, and voting for policies that will kill them? Thinking specifically of the AHCA here.

I am not going to name any names (you can probably imagine why...), but I had this discussion with someone else and was basically told "Screw you, they're not even close to comparable, and you're displaying "towering hubris" for even daring to suggest it."

So...input from more people would be appreciated. About the only difference I can see is the murder takes a few years rather than a few seconds.

 

[cbrunny]

Ask Schroedinger.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

1) If you don't understand the difference between active killing (like murder) and passive killing (like deliberately not acting to save someone that could be saved) then a thought experiment is beyond you.

2) If you think passing laws limiting health care to a more fiscally responsible model is in any way shape or form akin to either active killing or passive killing then a thought experiment is beyond you.

But to play along with your sad, pathetic little passive-aggressive poorly veiled "I hate Trump" speech, here's a little thought experiment which will surely be beyond you. The USA has existed as an independent country for almost 250 years and we had the original Obamacare for less than 10. How many politicians came and went in all those years before the idiotic Obamacare (which was failing long before Trump came along) was forced upon us and are all of them guilty of murder for not providing 100% universal coverage to heal every person of every malady no matter how much it cost?

And to whatever person told you "Screw you, they're not even close to comparable..." then good. There was as least one intelligent person in that conversation, it damn sure wasn't you.

 

[pete6032]

No.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Uh, Gag? Maybe lay off the angry beans for a moment here and look at the question being asked before you go thermonuclear? That was completely uncalled for.

Explain to me, please, the differences here. Because what I'm seeing is merely a couple of extra degrees of separation and motive. Going from "I will kill person X" to "I have hired someone who will kill person X" to "I have ensured that person X, who has pre-existing conditions, will die of them when s/he otherwise would not."

And if you think the AHCA is in any way fiscally responsible, you are somewhere between deluded and outright evil. Prevention is cheaper than cure, especially when we're talking about certain conditions that could be prevented but lead to massive, draining expenses when they manifest.

 

[interchange]

You have enough disposable income that you could easily spare to help starving kids in Africa (as evidenced by having the means to post this thought experiment on AnandTech forums). Not using it to save innocent lives is only a couple of extra degrees of separation from the AHCA. Are you a murderer?

 

[DigDog]

massively loaded question (that belongs on social media and not here) which implies that whoever answers, belongs into a preset of ethical absolutes which belong to the OP.

here is my answer.

A: i don't care if someone is killed by me, by someone i paid for, or by my inactions, but i might care if THAT SPECIFIC PERSON dies for whichever of the postulates.


the new AHCA is inhumane and scandalous, but aside from that, it doesn't kill anyone. The same way that Obamacare doesn't guarantee you won't die to cancer.
If i need to completely rewrite the op and make it "aren't policies which are known to raise the number of deaths as bad as murder itself" then the answers are NO, NO (because it doesn't target a specific individual), and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MURDER, it depends on why the murder is being committed.
In which case the answer is also probably NO, THE AHCA IS WORSE.

 

[JulesMaximus]

If I eat red meat despite having high blood pressure and I have a heart attack and die should that be considered suicide? Maybe my wife could sue the family of the butcher who sold me the meat for involuntary manslaughter?

Your proposition is just as ridiculous.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

@interchange: actually i'm almost (like within $100 of being) below the federal poverty line and still give about 30% of my after tax income to a human trafficking survivor friend of mine. So that line actually would work on most of the people who would post this sort of thing, but not me. Nice try though! I know, it's like meeting a truly poor priest or a Buddhist monk who actually only does own a bowl and a robe.

@JulesMaximus: that's a false analogy. You do to yourself what you wish to do, and yes, in a way you have contributed to your own suicide. But that's your decision and you'll face your own karma for it. You're not harming others for the most part, though you should reconsider for your wife's sake.

@DigDog: Interesting, so you're actually going further than I am here. What is it that makes the AHCA worse in your opinion? (In mine, it's because this amounts to democide by the backdoor, i.e., "I didn't kill her, officer, honest, I just locked her in the basement and didn't give her any food or water. She should have pulled herself up by her own bootstraps!".)

 

[DigDog]

see, in my ethics, i don't necessarily condemn .. "bad stuff". i got there by reading a ton of history, science, and .. more science. i don't think person A killing person B is inherently bad, it depends WHY they do it.
i'm like, eh, Ted Bundy, he's mental, of course he killed those people. that's what crazy people do. no need to cry about it.

the passing of the American Health Care Act was done for the following reasons (warning: some speculation contained in the next statement):
1) money

the AHCA is clearly a cut to health care where it is needed the most, in order to find money to give tax cuts to *whoever it is that paid for Trump to win*, when it should have been the exact opposite. And they have blatantly lied about it, while knowingly creating a system that will hurt the people whom they promised it would help.

These are the people who have been entrusted by the voters to defend them, to create a better country. To me, the AHCA is TREASON and the people responsible for it should be killed by firing squad.

If a privately owned, for profit company tries to steal my money, eh, well, it sucks, but it's what they do. When the government tries to do the same, it's really bad. It's like when a cop commits a crime.


Murder is just murder. The vast majority of time, the murderer had a pretty decent reason to murder, too. Sometimes it's just "i felt the urge", and who can blame them. But this is vile, there is no excuse for passing the AHCA when knowing full well how bad it is. It's committing a crime, knowingly and without any NEED. There is no justification, you are not stealing to feed your kids or lift yourself out of poverty, or even "he has never known a better life". These are rich scumbags who despise poor people, and frankly, despise everyone and feel nothing for their fellow men.

 

[gill77]

And I was just thinking that we had not truly reached Idiocracy yet.

 

[Charmonium]

There are different levels of culpability but you're culpable in both cases. The only real difference is that most people in the US at least, seem to be ok with death by benign neglect. People in other countries like Western Europe tend to NOT be ok with that sort of thing.

So it really depends on your frame of reference. If you lived in Roman times you would consider anyone who wasn't a Roman citizen to be an appropriate target of your aggression. Those people will get what you give them and like it.

I think it's fair to say that people who actually care for people in the abstract are more evolved than those who think that there shouldn't be any handouts or charity of any kind. After all, what is the basis of civilized society? That you care for the weakest and most vulnerable. Any society that doesn't do that doesn't really count as civilized.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Unless the policy is super cut and dry like "if I win I'm going to kill these people" I would not say it's the same. Let's say one policy may be very dangerous and may very well lead to deaths, when you're voting for it the motive is not for that policy to do that, but because you think it will actually work better. Like some people feel the American health care system is better while others feel the Canadian one is better. Arguments can be made on both sides as to which one will kill more people. The American one will kill people who can't afford care, but the Canadian one may kill people who have to wait so long for surgery. (just an example of potential arguments) so by voting for one you're looking at the positives and not the negative, so there's no motive of committing murder by voting for one even if people are saying it might cause deaths.

 

[Charmonium]

Under US criminal law, if you drive a car into a crowd of people, you can be charged with murder because you acted with such reckless disregard that it amounts to intentional killing - which is murder. As a practical matter, you would probably be charged with manslaughter but technically, it's murder.

I don't think the AHCA situation is appreciably different. Congress has acted with such reckless disregard of the consequences that those consequences can be viewed as intentional.

 

[FeuerFrei]

Any time you tinker with health care, you can't help but impact people's health, it is the nature of the beast. Unavoidable.

You have to remember,
a) people are not entitled to services they cannot afford.
b) it is not the proper role of government to pay your health or education costs.

There is a very Christian notion that all human life is of equal value. A notion which has been twisted to mean that we all have a right to receive medical treatment whether we can afford it or not. Which is false. If you can't afford it, you can go without, or prevail upon the doctor to slash fees out of the kindness of his heart, or find another citizen/insurance co. to shoulder the cost. Freebies are great, but no one is motivated to work for free, unless they LOOOOVE their fellow man. And even then there's a limit, you have to provide for yourself and family. So it's not a practical basis for society in general.

Also, any time the government puts price ceilings on stuff, it results in artificial shortages of that stuff. We know from experience. So government-administered health care is a recipe for death, as services will evaporate, due to lack of providers, and/or lack of timely service due to waiting lists.

Some people are wise enough to know that we are better off without government-administered health care. That does NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLECT. It doesn't mean they want people to die! WTH? Ludicrous. Now why would someone make up a lie like that? Hmm. Oh right, fear-mongering, hatred-stoking, priming you to persecute those that don't agree with you. One way to determine which side of an issue is wrong is the one that can't oppose on principle and instead invents lies and propaganda. Vilifying the other side in a desperate attempt to justify opposition. Careful who you listen to.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Well health care SHOULD be a human right. That's why a single payer system is much better. You should not die or go without care because you don't have money. When you get sick or injured, money should not even be something you should have to worry about. You should get the same care as everyone else. That's why the Canadian system is way better.

What's funny is that some people are against the concept of "paying for someone else's care". What do you think insurance is? If you don't get sick, all the money you pay towards insurance is to help other people. And that insurance is freaking expensive, wouldn't you rather that money stay in your pockets? You already pay taxes either way and they will continue to go up either way. A single payer health are system would use tax dollars and would be seamless. Taxes are something you are already paying into anyway.

I hear of people paying like $400/mo in health insurance, I can't imagine having to have that extra expense to worry about, I already have enough life expenses and bills as it is.

 

[Charmonium]

I don't understand this attitude that if you can't afford something, you don't deserve it. The role of govt is to provide goods and services that cannot be provided by private industry due to a variety of factors.

Take bridges and highways for example. Does NY deserve to have a dozen bridges and tunnels into Manhattan if they're not prepared to pay for them? Of course they do. Because although someone living in upstate NY may never set foot in the city, those services benefit the economy which in turn benefits all of the citizens.

It's same with health care. By providing that care to everyone, you benefit the economy as a whole. It therefore inures to the benefit of everyone who participates in that economy. Without it, countless man hours are wasted, literally wasted. And that's before you even get to the issue of what rights people may or may not have.

 

[Ruptga]

massively loaded question

...

the new AHCA is inhumane and scandalous, but aside from that, it doesn't kill anyone. The same way that Obamacare doesn't guarantee you won't die to cancer.

^^

 

[interchange]

@interchange: actually i'm almost (like within $100 of being) below the federal poverty line and still give about 30% of my after tax income to a human trafficking survivor friend of mine. So that line actually would work on most of the people who would post this sort of thing, but not me. Nice try though! I know, it's like meeting a truly poor priest or a Buddhist monk who actually only does own a bowl and a robe.

So, am I a murderer?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I have a question I'd like to throw out here and see what people think.

Most people will say there is no difference between killing someone yourself vs. hiring a hitman, and it's not hard to see why.

But, how much difference is there between killing someone, hiring a hitman, and voting for policies that will kill them? Thinking specifically of the AHCA here.

I am not going to name any names (you can probably imagine why...), but I had this discussion with someone else and was basically told "Screw you, they're not even close to comparable, and you're displaying "towering hubris" for even daring to suggest it."

So...input from more people would be appreciated. About the only difference I can see is the murder takes a few years rather than a few seconds.

Logically speaking (which isn't always 'human', just rational), there isn't a difference. Accepting a policy (of mind, of faith, or of law) which will knowingly (this part is important) lead to the death of another is equivalent to pulling the trigger yourself, in my opinion. This can be translated to faith healing, to homeopathy, or to acceptance (or refusal) of laws which can be definitively traced to the eventual death of another. That's a high bar to cross, though.

The most poignant representation of this, I feel, is that most people who have been, or know from a personal standpoint, someone who would be affected by a policy such as the AHCA won't vote against it, because they know what affect that would have on a person. Most people who reject such things (and this can be carried over to other social priorities) have never had direct experience with it, from what I've seen at least. They may not realize what it really 'means' to put such a policy in place.

I don't believe that most people are, strictly speaking, evil (for whatever definition you'd choose for that). Just that there's a lot of people misguided, and unimaginative.

 

[edcoolio]

I have a question I'd like to throw out here and see what people think.

Most people will say there is no difference between killing someone yourself vs. hiring a hitman, and it's not hard to see why.

But, how much difference is there between killing someone, hiring a hitman, and voting for policies that will kill them? Thinking specifically of the AHCA here.

I am not going to name any names (you can probably imagine why...), but I had this discussion with someone else and was basically told "Screw you, they're not even close to comparable, and you're displaying "towering hubris" for even daring to suggest it."

So...input from more people would be appreciated. About the only difference I can see is the murder takes a few years rather than a few seconds.

Moronic and a politically absolute anti-thought experiment designed for teenage children, but I will play along nonetheless. I will begin by saying that you used the word "killing" rather than "murder". Since they are different, I will go with what you wrote.

The correct answer is: They are all (obviously) different.

Killing someone yourself requires risk taking, the ability to perpertrate violence of action, moral flexibility, emotional control, mental control, martial skill, mental toughness, and balls.

Hiring a hitman requires risk taking, moral flexibility, emotional control, mental control, mental toughness, and severely reduced balls.

Now, national policies require national perspectives, not personal ones, like you are attempting in your transparent loaded "thought experiment". Another moronic "thought experiment" could be "how much difference is there between killing someone, hiring a hitman, and voting for policies that will kill them? Thinking specifically of war here."

Essentially, policies are enacted for the benefit of a nation, not of the individual. If the people and leaders of a nation, for example, decide that it benefits the nation more to fight a war than to protect males 18-25 years of age, then that is the national perspective - rightly or wrongly. It must be seen and argued from this perspective, or your thought experiment holds no water.

Everything has a cost to benefit ratio. EVERYTHING. Only children and the obtuse are unaware of this and still ask questions like "Why do bad things happen to good people" or "Why can't everyone be the same" or "It's not fair".

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Moronic and a politically absolute anti-thought experiment designed for teenage children, but I will play along nonetheless. I will begin by saying that you used the word "killing" rather than "murder". Since they are different, I will go with what you wrote.

The correct answer is: They are all (obviously) different.

Killing someone yourself requires risk taking, the ability to perpertrate violence of action, moral flexibility, emotional control, mental control, martial skill, mental toughness, and balls.

Hiring a hitman requires risk taking, moral flexibility, emotional control, mental control, mental toughness, and severely reduced balls.

Now, national policies require national perspectives, not personal ones, like you are attempting in your transparent loaded "thought experiment". Another moronic "thought experiment" could be "how much difference is there between killing someone, hiring a hitman, and voting for policies that will kill them? Thinking specifically of war here."

Essentially, policies are enacted for the benefit of a nation, not of the individual. If the people and leaders of a nation, for example, decide that it benefits the nation more to fight a war than to protect males 18-25 years of age, then that is the national perspective - rightly or wrongly. It must be seen and argued from this perspective, or your thought experiment holds no water.

Everything has a cost to benefit ratio. EVERYTHING. Only children and the obtuse are unaware of this and still ask questions like "Why do bad things happen to good people" or "Why can't everyone be the same" or "It's not fair".

Strictly speaking, it doesn't seem as though you're disagreeing with the premise. I feel like you're leaning on the notion that killing people is bad, whereas voting for policies which may benefit the nation over the individual (needs of the many vs few) is good. If we abstract this out a bit and remove morality from the equation, so there's no 'right' and 'wrong' from a moral perspective, would you still agree that there's a difference between killing a foreign fighter personally, or voting for war with the country of a foreign fighter, knowing he'll be killed?

 

[edcoolio]

Strictly speaking, it doesn't seem as though you're disagreeing with the premise. I feel like you're leaning on the notion that killing people is bad, whereas voting for policies which may benefit the nation over the individual (needs of the many vs few) is good. If we abstract this out a bit and remove morality from the equation, so there's no 'right' and 'wrong' from a moral perspective, would you still agree that there's a difference between killing a foreign fighter personally, or voting for war with the country of a foreign fighter, knowing he'll be killed?

The premise is flawed because there is a false equivalency.

By definition, killing a combatant is different than voting for war. One is a personal, physical act. The other, a decision on national policy made by the body politic.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

The premise is flawed because there is a false equivalency.

By definition, killing a combatant is different than voting for war. One is a personal, physical act. The other, a decision on national policy made by the body politic.

But don't both carry the intent? I find the intent far more important than the act itself. Intent to do a_thing is conjured in the mind of a rational, thinking, aware individual which weighs pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages, and comes to a conclusion based on their own thinking processes. Anything can 'act', including the universe itself (intent notwithstanding) by way of randomness.

By voting for war (to re-use the example) you intend to knowingly sacrifice another life for some benefit derived in the mind, with the mindset that it's better than the alternative. Again, morality aside, what's the difference between that, and someone handing you a gun and stating 'the same benefits to society/your family/you/whatever will occur if you shoot this man'?

 

[edcoolio]

But don't both carry the intent? I find the intent far more important than the act itself. Intent to do a_thing is conjured in the mind of a rational, thinking, aware individual which weighs pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages, and comes to a conclusion based on their own thinking processes. Anything can 'act', including the universe itself (intent notwithstanding) by way of randomness.

By voting for war (to re-use the example) you intend to knowingly sacrifice another life for some benefit derived in the mind, with the mindset that it's better than the alternative. Again, morality aside, what's the difference between that, and someone handing you a gun and stating 'the same benefits to society/your family/you/whatever will occur if you shoot this man'?

The body politic makes decisions based upon the perceived threat or benefit to a nation as a whole, which then requires coercion and is enforced by the state.

The individual makes decisions based purely upon personal choice.