I’m not a big fan of it because it essentially is tax dollars to already greedy insurance companies.

What is needed is to expand medicare to workers rather than hand out tax money to private industry.

Thank you.

Why would you chose to skip your Gr. 10 math class just so you can blog?

You are an idiot and an asshole. You pose a hypothetical question which can only have a hypothetical answer. Which means, you are just a phony.

Who said anything about a coma?

You must have ADD because you cannot seem to stay on task. I’ve given two different scenarios, neither of which mentions comas.

Why would you choose your wife over the 10 strangers or the group of the kids?

Just to clairify,

I assume by that you mean a terminal coma If so agreed.

One may be terminal yet cognizant and one may be in a coma yet not terminal.

When there is no reasonable expectation that my wife would live a better life than an onion then I would be willing to have her help others live a better life.

Cheers – and you make a great points wrt to point view. Which actually makes some sense of the madness.

‘HOWEVER, … I do believe that if my wife was terminal and in a coma then I would consent to pulling the plug so that her organs might save 10, or even 100 others.’

I assume by that you mean a terminal coma If so agreed.

Can’t wait to see what Liberty Lover will come up with next…

Err really? I might be clarifying the thought process. Perhaps that looks like flip flopping. But okay.

‘So, is a hypothetical that measures the value in other humans live to you of your wife cannot be specifically answered, how can that not be “insightful?”’

Well okay. It’s great you find that insightful. If someone presented to me I’d find it empty – as it is given just as a statement. It’s like saying ‘I like yellow’. Unless you mean it’s insightful to me, which I ’spose it is.

And on the rest of your post I sorta agree.

Except as I said I don’t think all hypos are equal – not least based on what they reveal. But that’s a pedantic point.

Thank both of you for an enlightening discussion.

I know that’s not politically correct. And that is really an emotional, not a rational answer.

If the answer is emotional than it isn’t THE answer. And if it is all rational, it can’t be THE answer.

Because I don’t know your wife and am totally blind to your bonds, any answer on my part concerning your wife would be all rational. But your decision couldn’t be rational simply because the marriage bond makes your whole relationship all emotion. The same thing applies to Bobbo, myself, and everyone else.

And that is the trap Loser sets up. You can’t answer the question properly.

HOWEVER, … I do believe that if my wife was terminal and in a coma then I would consent to pulling the plug so that her organs might save 10, or even 100 others.

Thank you again for the intelligent discussion.

Nope. The only way you’ll know is if you answer WHY you chose your wife over the strangers. Otherwise, your choice could be just random.

WHY would YOU choose your wife’s life over that of a group of strangers?

#85, Yep. He’s so afraid of the mirror, he thrashing around like a fish out of water right now.

#99, I would comment, but I am not sure I would get a truthful answer. c’est la vie

So, is a hypothetical that measures the value in other humans live to you of your wife cannot be specifically answered, how can that not be “insightful?”

I think it is “most important” to learn to answer a hypothetical within its own terms and then go on to the assumptions and cautions that such a limited response must stimulate.

Bigger questions are always more interesting than smaller questions. That doesn’t make the smaller ones invalid, and not even devalued by comparison. No, small hypo’s are valued because they lead us to the larger hypo’s. A “path” as you might?

Your hypo and its answer is just that. Doesn’t matter what Loser may add to it. What he or I may think of it.

So I agree===I’m just on pins and noodles waiting for Loser’s next eclectic hypo.

I am so very happy to be living in a meaningless universe. Just imagine the opposite?

So if no special caveats on the people, and my wife etc. And I can either save my wife, and people will die or they live and she dies. Then all else being equal, to me, truthfully their lives are not directly equal to my own wifes life. Why? Because she’s my wife.

Which leads to how many lives is her life worth? 10 seems too many, 1 too few.

I know that’s not politically correct. And that is really an emotional, not a rational answer.

But there it is.

Pfft. Well in the end a communication fail then.

Happy to learn + did by the experience.

I’m happy to engage in hypotheticals. I was arguing that hypos are generally great things. Not only that but I did previously answer the question, to at least to equal quality to your own. That is I didn’t answer the question I answered a different question.

From where I’m sitting we aren’t talking about the hypothetical, but the larger question of hypotheticals in general. So I haven’t bothered to reanswer the original with context (such as an internal belief of the like of ‘all people are equal’).

For what it’s worth your answer given no other context, is as good as I’ve heard. But it’s hardly iron clad, or hugely insightful – for the reasons I outlined.

So, now we are quibbling, yes quibbling, over a pedantic point of whether the original hypo was meaningless of not. Pedantically I won’t say it is. Pedantically you won’t say if answering literally ‘yes/no’ to the question is or isn’t.

Well aren’t we a couple of pedants.

Which is a rather dull and uninteresting place to end up. Still the journey made it all worth while.

So for that I thank you.

I’ve heard there are two types of people in this world: those who use their intellect to learn, and those who use it to avoid learning.

I’d rather engage my intellect and get what I can out of things like hypotheticals. Labeling something meaningless and gaining nothing from the experience is the empty game, it leads to not accepting direct answers and all kinds of silliness.

As I stated, I think the hypo does stand on its own because I am willing to engage it. If you remain unwilling to engage it then the hypothetical has done its job. Perhaps not as originally designed, but ain’t that life?

I see what you’re saying it – but I’m not buying it.

For an argument to be rational (as in logical) it’s based on axioms which manipulated mechanistically (via logic) to reach a conclusion. That they can be manipulated mechanistically is vital – as it means it can be proved from first principals, via the axioms independently. That is other people on the forum reading it can see if the argument makes sense.

If the context is ‘me’ – then that is internal to other observers. Therefore there isn’t an argument to an outside observer, it a fundamental belief (ie its axiomatic).

And concretely you didn’t answer the question yes/no. You had to justify it by revealing some of your inner self – ie your belief ‘all people are equal’.

So would you agree if I answered _literally and just_, yes or no to that hypo, the answer is close to meaningless?

On the other hand, Uranium & Gold is found where indigenous people live. I’d gladly get rid of all iranians that are oppressing them on those places.