I think the five-organ hypothesis clearly works for everyone not because there's anything special about death, but because it compares similar losses with similar gains; i.e., killing one person versus preventing the deaths of five. But comparing stealing a car with saving the world is disproportionate; it would only make sense if the hypothesis were to steal a car in order to steal its parts so that five other people's cars could work properly.
It's only logical if you operate pears with pears and apples with apples.
1. In practice, humans explain their ethical intuitions with a muddled blend of consequentialist, deontological, and virtue ethic explanations. "Don't kill people", "helps the most", and "that's cowardly". Claiming that one is "true" is mostly nonsense.
2. I tend to believe that most humans' real ethical stances are something a lot closer to
A) Demonstrate that you're in the group
B) Play "fair" with other people in the group
C) People in the far enough outgroup or on the bad team mostly don't count
I think the problem with your organ transplant hypothetical is people read in biases and assumption. People assume that those in need of organs may need them due to unhealthy lifestyle choices and people question how many life years will be added by the new organs considering the recipients were at death’s door. People are judging the specific hypothetical instead of the broader moral question.
When the same situation is framed as the trolley problem, which has less noise, people tend to be more utilitarian and are willing to sacrifice one life to save two.
You can argue that the trolley problem is too abstract to draw conclusions, but the organ donation problem bakes in too many biases to be reliable.
I think you're understating things. By most people's standards, Martin Shkreli is a terrible person. He's also incredibly rich. If people took half of his money and gave it to the Against Malaria Foundation, a huge number of lives could be saved at the expense of making a jerk become very rich instead of very, very, very rich. Still, most people think this act would be wrong.
I'm not sure they're right, but this does seem to show that non-dramatic rights violations are typically viewed as seriously wrong even as a means of producing vast good to others. Rights violations are typically taken to be seriously bad, and as requiring desperate situations to justify them. Even if bias is influencing these judgments, they can't be adequately explained without a strong respect for rights.
There lies a complete moral space also in the question of WHEN TO TOLERATE, BELIEVE, and/or PROMOTE the lies of other people, when you KNOW or HAVE REASON TO SUSPECT that their assertions are lies. You DON'T always have to invent your own "convenient truths."
If somebody steals my car to make a profit, I wish a large stick descending on their bones. I almost see it as war, something beyond mere theft, a struggle between their worldview and mine.
If somebody takes my car with the intent of returning it, I find myself almost indifferent (granted, my current car is not new). Even if they crash it by mistake, as long as they weren't just stupidly taking it for a ride I can deal with it without much emotion. I don't see them as Enemy.
I think the five-organ hypothesis clearly works for everyone not because there's anything special about death, but because it compares similar losses with similar gains; i.e., killing one person versus preventing the deaths of five. But comparing stealing a car with saving the world is disproportionate; it would only make sense if the hypothesis were to steal a car in order to steal its parts so that five other people's cars could work properly.
It's only logical if you operate pears with pears and apples with apples.
1. In practice, humans explain their ethical intuitions with a muddled blend of consequentialist, deontological, and virtue ethic explanations. "Don't kill people", "helps the most", and "that's cowardly". Claiming that one is "true" is mostly nonsense.
2. I tend to believe that most humans' real ethical stances are something a lot closer to
A) Demonstrate that you're in the group
B) Play "fair" with other people in the group
C) People in the far enough outgroup or on the bad team mostly don't count
3.
I think the problem with your organ transplant hypothetical is people read in biases and assumption. People assume that those in need of organs may need them due to unhealthy lifestyle choices and people question how many life years will be added by the new organs considering the recipients were at death’s door. People are judging the specific hypothetical instead of the broader moral question.
When the same situation is framed as the trolley problem, which has less noise, people tend to be more utilitarian and are willing to sacrifice one life to save two.
You can argue that the trolley problem is too abstract to draw conclusions, but the organ donation problem bakes in too many biases to be reliable.
I think you're understating things. By most people's standards, Martin Shkreli is a terrible person. He's also incredibly rich. If people took half of his money and gave it to the Against Malaria Foundation, a huge number of lives could be saved at the expense of making a jerk become very rich instead of very, very, very rich. Still, most people think this act would be wrong.
I'm not sure they're right, but this does seem to show that non-dramatic rights violations are typically viewed as seriously wrong even as a means of producing vast good to others. Rights violations are typically taken to be seriously bad, and as requiring desperate situations to justify them. Even if bias is influencing these judgments, they can't be adequately explained without a strong respect for rights.
There lies a complete moral space also in the question of WHEN TO TOLERATE, BELIEVE, and/or PROMOTE the lies of other people, when you KNOW or HAVE REASON TO SUSPECT that their assertions are lies. You DON'T always have to invent your own "convenient truths."
Pumping my intuitions, intent matters.
If somebody steals my car to make a profit, I wish a large stick descending on their bones. I almost see it as war, something beyond mere theft, a struggle between their worldview and mine.
If somebody takes my car with the intent of returning it, I find myself almost indifferent (granted, my current car is not new). Even if they crash it by mistake, as long as they weren't just stupidly taking it for a ride I can deal with it without much emotion. I don't see them as Enemy.