The Value of Life

[Paleophyte]

OK, this is a thorny hypothetical.

You have two buttons, which I have made reasonably different to help prevent accidental usage.

The first one is a big, red, round button with the number "1" clearly printed on it. The sort that seems to suggest that you shouldn't press it unless you really mean it. Happily, it has a safety cover to prevent accidental activation. Also, it's magic, so it only responds to intent. There's also a dial that let's you switch from 1X to 10X, 100X, 1000X etc. up to a trillion X. This just lets you make a whole lot of button presses at once without the hassle of sitting there spamming the thing all night long. Dail it up to 1,000,000X, press the button once, and that counts as a million pushes of the button.

When you press this button two things happen: 
 - One, you get $100,000 deposited directly into your bank account. No taxes, no questions asked, no funny business. Spend it however you like.
 - Two, you lose a day from your life. The Fates snip it from the end, painlessly and seamlessly. The cough worsens faster, or you step off the curb without looking a little sooner. You die exactly how you would have died, just one day earlier. How? Magic.

For reference, a million dollars will cost you ten days. A year of your life will get you $36.5 million. A cool billion will run you just under twenty-seven and a half years.

The second button is purple, square, and has the number "2" clearly printed on it. It functions much like button #1, except that when you push this button, the day is removed from somebody else's life. Somebody, somewhere in the world dies a day earlier than they would have otherwise. This is indetectable and untraceable. Only you will ever know that it happened. Every time that you press the button, the Fates will choose somebody purely at random from the entire population of the world to take the day from. So it's very unlikely that anybody will lose more than a single day unless either they're very, very unlucky or you press the button a lot.

How many times do you press each button?

[SYZ]

Button #1 and once only. Never button #2.

At my age it's the only response that's logical for me.

[Paleophyte]

Button #1 and once only.  Never button #2.

I've encountered persuasive moral arguments for hammering button #2.

[airportkid]

How many people have access to these buttons?  What brought these buttons into existence - other agencies? - which would then imply other people can access them too.

I find the mindset of these hypotheticals disturbing - how much hurt would one inflict on others for personal benefit.  That's crummy.

Here's a hypothetical with a more positive mindset:  Would you spend $5 if doing so would save costing someone else $100?  Or 5 cents to save someone else $1?  Where the someone else would never know or be able to thank you.

[Dānu]

A million on each. I lean towards consequentialism, and since that other person won't know, it's effectively no harm done. Harm that you don't know isn't harm.

[Paleophyte]

How many people have access to these buttons?  What brought these buttons into existence - other agencies? - which would then imply other people can access them too.

Just you. You have reasonable assurances that you have and will continue to have the only access to these buttons. This isn't some horrid stand-off or arms race problem.

I find the mindset of these hypotheticals disturbing - how much hurt would one inflict on others for personal benefit.  That's crummy.

Look deeper. This one gets thorny.

The very superficial answer is to say that you'd press the purple button a lot, because it's a small harm to people who will never know it and you'll never be caught. A distant and diffuse ethical problem, much like pollution or poor labour conditions.

The less superficial answer is to say that you'd never push the purple button. That's clearly theft. You're shortening somebody's life to fatten your bank account, just like the ultra-wealthy that we've all learned to loathe. One more kleptocrat making the world a little worse for their own personal benefit.

But the really thorny problems emerge when we cease considering personal gain and begin addressing the collective possibilities. What happens if you dial the purple button up to 8.3 billion, shorten everybody's life by an average of one day, and redistribute that wealth? Obviously, we're going to have practical issues with the economics, but aside from that? A quarter of the world lives in extreme poverty. 50% exist on less than $10 a day. How much do you think a $100,000 cheque just changed their world? How much longer will they now live? In may cases, you may have traded a single day for years or decades of life. How many of them would have begged you to press that button if they'd had the choice?

And now you're off into much less certain moral ground.

[brewerb]

Can I push #2 and not take the money?

[GenesisNemesis]

2.

What? I'm donating the money to help fund cancer research. Or maybe to help out an animal shelter. I wouldn't be able to know the impact pressing the button would have ultimately, but I have much more confidence that money could have a positive impact for society.

Also, if the purpose of this is to show everyone is somewhat selfish, yeah, duh.

[Rizen]

But the really thorny problems emerge when we cease considering personal gain and begin addressing the collective possibilities. What happens if you dial the purple button up to 8.3 billion, shorten everybody's life by an average of one day, and redistribute that wealth? Obviously, we're going to have practical issues with the economics, but aside from that? A quarter of the world lives in extreme poverty. 50% exist on less than $10 a day. How much do you think a $100,000 cheque just changed their world? How much longer will they now live? In may cases, you may have traded a single day for years or decades of life. How many of them would have begged you to press that button if they'd had the choice?

And now you're off into much less certain moral ground.

The richest 1% could already do this with their wealth in real life. It's estimated that it would cost $39-50 billion each year to end world hunger by 2030. There's more to it than that of course. You can't simply throw money at the problem of world hunger and have it magically turn into food in areas with conflicts like wars etc, etc. You'd have to work out food production and distribution, politics, the safety of the people... That's another topic though. The point is that this possibility already exists and the only thing holding it back is greed.  

https://marketrealist.com/p/could-jeff-b...ld-hunger/

[Paleophyte]

Can I push #2 and not take the money?

You can donate it.

[Paleophyte]

But the really thorny problems emerge when we cease considering personal gain and begin addressing the collective possibilities. What happens if you dial the purple button up to 8.3 billion, shorten everybody's life by an average of one day, and redistribute that wealth? Obviously, we're going to have practical issues with the economics, but aside from that? A quarter of the world lives in extreme poverty. 50% exist on less than $10 a day. How much do you think a $100,000 cheque just changed their world? How much longer will they now live? In may cases, you may have traded a single day for years or decades of life. How many of them would have begged you to press that button if they'd had the choice?

And now you're off into much less certain moral ground.

The richest 1% could already do this with their wealth in real life. It's estimated that it would cost $39-50 billion each year to end world hunger by 2030. There's more to it than that of course. You can't simply throw money at the problem of world hunger and have it magically turn into food in areas with conflicts like wars etc, etc. You'd have to work out food production and distribution, politics, the safety of the people... That's another topic though. The point is that this possibility already exists and the only thing holding it back is greed.  

https://marketrealist.com/p/could-jeff-b...ld-hunger/

Could, but don't. You now have the ability to dial the purple button up to 8.3 million, decrease the lifespan of one person in a thousand by a day, and have a little more than an Elon worth of funding at your disposal to take care of any global problem that you aim it at. Do you do it?

[Paleophyte]

Also, if the purpose of this is to show everyone is somewhat selfish, yeah, duh.

Selfish is easy. How are we with diffuse, remote, depersonalized harm and lack of consent competing with a larger common good? The morality gets twisted in there.

[Dānu]

The richest 1% could already do this with their wealth in real life. It's estimated that it would cost $39-50 billion each year to end world hunger by 2030. There's more to it than that of course. You can't simply throw money at the problem of world hunger and have it magically turn into food in areas with conflicts like wars etc, etc. You'd have to work out food production and distribution, politics, the safety of the people... That's another topic though. The point is that this possibility already exists and the only thing holding it back is greed.  

https://marketrealist.com/p/could-jeff-b...ld-hunger/

Could, but don't. You now have the ability to dial the purple button up to 8.3 million, decrease the lifespan of one person in a thousand by a day, and have a little more than an Elon worth of funding at your disposal to take care of any global problem that you aim it at. Do you do it?

The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft agley.

[brewerb]

Can I push #2 and not take the money?

You can donate it.

Is there a set time frame for when, i.e. can I save it for a future date?

[Rizen]

The richest 1% could already do this with their wealth in real life. It's estimated that it would cost $39-50 billion each year to end world hunger by 2030. There's more to it than that of course. You can't simply throw money at the problem of world hunger and have it magically turn into food in areas with conflicts like wars etc, etc. You'd have to work out food production and distribution, politics, the safety of the people... That's another topic though. The point is that this possibility already exists and the only thing holding it back is greed.  

https://marketrealist.com/p/could-jeff-b...ld-hunger/

Could, but don't. You now have the ability to dial the purple button up to 8.3 million, decrease the lifespan of one person in a thousand by a day, and have a little more than an Elon worth of funding at your disposal to take care of any global problem that you aim it at. Do you do it?

There's a Rush song, "you bet your life". Where essentially he's talking about how no matter what you do everyday you're betting your precious life energy. Is this what you want to do? You only have so much life to bet. 


What's your life worth to you, is one day worth $100,000? You could do a lot worse in a day than making $100,000. People "bet" their lives against the acquisition of exponentially less money than that every day. That question's easy.

Do I have the right to bet one day of someone else's life? To that I say "does it matter"? People also bet other people's lives every day for much less than a hundred grand. When you pay someone a 9-5 job that's essentially what you're doing. I really see this as a question of "can I do more good with a hundred grand than one day of a random person's life is worth?" And the answer is yes.

With that established, and this is a point I touched on in my previous post, the real question isn't if but how? How exactly can I make that person's lost day worth while? Like I said before, it's not a simple matter of seeing a problem and throwing money at it. There's a lot of reasons, logistically, why that doesn't work. My first though is maximizing resources while minimizing loss of life. So the initial point becomes "how much money will I need to turn that into a source of revenue for my projects?" That's the maximum number of button presses I would allow. I don't know what that is. But money comes into money. That's why it's so stupid when Republicans act like it's unfair to tax the rich but it's fine to cut social safety nets for the poor. That's another rant but the above is how I would view the initial steps of the situation.

[Minimalist]

How do I get Fuckface to push the button?

[Free]

I suggest everybody just take the money and run.

[epronovost]

I would press the button 1 to cut my life of about 1 year maybe 2 shorter and the button 2 a single time (since I can press each button once for free). There should be more than enough money for me, my spouse and my close family (even though none of us really need money), but it would help to expend and finance the animal rescue and refuge my spouse is currently working on with more than enough leftovers to finance some community organism dedicated to environmental protection and human wellfare in my area. All in all, one or two years well spent.

[epronovost]

Could, but don't. You now have the ability to dial the purple button up to 8.3 million, decrease the lifespan of one person in a thousand by a day, and have a little more than an Elon worth of funding at your disposal to take care of any global problem that you aim it at. Do you do it?

That's a very interesting and tempting rational, but I think it's conceited in my case. I don't think I have the ability to manage that much free money and achieve anything notable with it. It's more likely this immense fortune would become a curse in and on itself and transform me into a little Elon before long especially if that money is effectively "free money" from my perspective. I also think you can't solve any of the world's problem with money. You need willing and capable brains and hands more than you need money to fund them for the money is often already there. It's often wiser not to submit yourself to dangerous temptations when you can.

[Szuchow]

It's a Ring of Gyges story with some extra steps.

I think that I would push button 1 enough times to get 10 millions which would be a sum that would give me a more than comfortable life for next 35 years. I hope I wouldn't push button 2 but hope is all I can state with certainty. I have no idea what I would actually do and with magic existing only in the books it will remain in realm of pure (and useless) speculation.

What is most important however is that I don't think it present any real moral issue. Some will say x some will say y. So what? It won't be ever tested. Far better test of morals is what we do every day - donating to charity, protesting, doing volunteer work...

[Dānu]

[Unsapien]

I'd push button #1 once, that's all I'd need, It would be immoral to press button 2. I have no right to inflict my will on other peoples' lives like that.

I'm not sure why people not knowing who will be hurt by pressing button 2 somehow makes it more acceptable.

I mean we'll never really know who or how many people died because of all the things Trump has done from covid misinformation, bombing Iran, & cutting health care etc, but we know the number isn't zero, and he's making billions from it. So he's already playing this game IRL, how are we liking it so far?


If you shoot someone dead as they're falling from a height that will kill them anyway when they hit the ground, you're still guilty of murder, as far as I see it, doesn't matter if they only had seconds left.

[Rizen]

I mean we'll never really know who or how many people died because of all the things Trump has done from covid misinformation, bombing Iran, & cutting health care etc, but we know the number isn't zero, and he's making billions from it. So he's already playing this game IRL, how are we liking it so far?

This is kind of a false equivalency. There's a big difference between taking one day out of someone's life and bombing Iran. Especially if it's for a good cause.

When I talked about projects in my previous post I was talking about entrepreneurial projects for the good of the world. For example, the prevent cancer foundation has provided more than $120 million since 1985 to fund research and community outreach programs. This includes critical early funding for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which prevents over 90% of HPV-related cancers. If I can take one day off someone's life but extend their life and the lives of thousands of other people by decades, I do it. I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist. Pragmatists get stuff done.

[SYZ]

...I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist. Pragmatists get stuff done.

Is it always the right or proper thing they get done though?

For pragmatism, or more philosophically, utilitarianism to work, someone
somewhere has to decide what is good for the greatest number, and then
enforce it. This power could be a dictatorship, or be the tyranny of majority
rule.

Either way, great suffering could be imposed and great crimes committed
because the powers that be have decided what brings the greatest good for
the greatest number.   I immediately think of Trump.

Matthew Schmitz of The American Conservative magazine considers Trump
to be "a pragmatic if unpredictable kind of moderate". But pragmatism is not
synonymous with moderation, and unpredictability in a powerful office is a
fundamental problem—as Americans are now finding out!

[Unsapien]

I mean we'll never really know who or how many people died because of all the things Trump has done from covid misinformation, bombing Iran, & cutting health care etc, but we know the number isn't zero, and he's making billions from it. So he's already playing this game IRL, how are we liking it so far?

This is kind of a false equivalency. There's a big difference between taking one day out of someone's life and bombing Iran. Especially if it's for a good cause.

When I talked about projects in my previous post I was talking about entrepreneurial projects for the good of the world. For example, the prevent cancer foundation has provided more than $120 million since 1985 to fund research and community outreach programs. This includes critical early funding for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which prevents over 90% of HPV-related cancers. If I can take one day off someone's life but extend their life and the lives of thousands of other people by decades, I do it. I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist. Pragmatists get stuff done.

So if someone needs my kidney to extend their life at no cost to my own life, they should just be able to take it without consent?

If someone discovered a cure for a disease in my blood, and needed to take more blood, "for a good cause" I shouldn't be able to say no? Personally I'd say yes, if I could help, I would, but this is dangerous territory we're entering here.

I don't really like the slippery slope analogy, but this might actually fit this time, we're talking about humans here, we always push things too far.

Eugenics anyone?