tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-503156933742060398.post3677482425435320792..comments2023-09-28T05:05:02.102-07:00Comments on Gavagai!: What is the problem of letting die?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-503156933742060398.post-63547968786428303892012-04-29T14:06:02.630-07:002012-04-29T14:06:02.630-07:00Hi Carl,
Both Unger and Singer has talked about t...Hi Carl,<br /><br />Both Unger and Singer has talked about the objection you gave and used modified versions of the thought experiment that take into account those kinds of objections but have the same results.<br /><br />Just as a real life example recently illustrates, our intuitions about moral blame doesn't seem to be dissipated when using a "but I wasn't the only one not to" excuse. This is called the "diffusion of responsibility" excuse and it's controversial whether in this case it is a good excuse. <br /><br />A few months ago, for example, there was a toddler in China who had been run over twice by cars and several people looked on without helping. Many people in China and in other places called out for the criminal prosecution of the eyewitnesses who did nothing to help. There was also widespread blame and condemnation of these individuals. Those eyewitnesses, of course, used the excuse that they weren't the only ones not to help and that they had thought someone either must have done something to help already (such as call an ambulance) or they thought that it wasn't their responsibility to help because they are not the child's kin and so forth. But such excuses often do not carry any currency. <br /><br />But you might make a good case that society as a whole is responsible and that responsibility is spread so that each is deserving of some (but not all) responsibility (and blame) for letting children starve while the driver deserves all the responsibility and blame for not helping the person om the side of the road.NChenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925449187109030870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-503156933742060398.post-22823575411795181312012-04-29T05:31:27.519-07:002012-04-29T05:31:27.519-07:00Thinking about it a little bit more, I think the t...Thinking about it a little bit more, I think the trouble is that utilitarians only believe in individuals, not collective entities, so that means they have dump all these supererogatory burdens on people, because there's nowhere else to put them. A collectivist can say that no one is personally guilty but the whole is, just like how none of the cells in my body are individually guilty if I commit a crime, but I am as a whole.Carl M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08735581414895337655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-503156933742060398.post-64558483625536214452012-04-29T05:22:00.587-07:002012-04-29T05:22:00.587-07:00It seems like there's at least one pretty obvi...It seems like there's at least one pretty obvious disanalogy: you're the only one driving by who can help the bleeding man. Suppose there were a bunch of cars driving by. In that case, it's pretty intuitive to say someone else should drive him to the hospital. In fact, that's a situation many of us have encountered driving on the highway--you see someone stalled out but don't do anything about it because you're busy at the time.<br /><br />Given that there are a lot of people in the world who could give to UNICEF, it's silly to guilt trip one individual for not doing so. The entity that needs to feel guilty is the US government, not you specifically.Carl M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08735581414895337655noreply@blogger.com