Duty versus consequence
It seems to me that at least prima facie we always have a duty to promote the best consequences that we can. However, this becomes immoral when it involves treating people as means to an end only and not as ends in themselves. That is why it is immoral to kill someone even if it means that one can thereby save the lives of ten other people. How simple that sounds, and yet how completely it clarifies the understanding of a theory like utilitarianism to see its difficulties expressed so simply. And yet that cannot be the full side of the story, because that only makes it immoral to kill someone in the name of social utility. What is preventing the person who would otherwise die, from having an altruistic duty to kill himself in the name of social utility?
This goes back to the astronaut scenario. I think that the astronaut does have an altruistic duty to kill himself in that situation. But the reason for that is not that it is the outcome that maximises the good consequences for the planet. It is because it is the only way to treat the people living on that planet as ends in themselves, and not merely as a means to an end of his own survival. Landing the ship would interfere with the natural development of their lives in the most egregious way possible, and that is wrong.
That is why number does not matter to the determination of right and wrong. That is why if the situation is reversed, and an ark of people who may need to survive by landing their ship onto a planet, cannot do so if their diseases would kill the indigenous population on that planet. This is true even if the ark contained ten times as many people on it as did the planet. It is even true if the planet contained one person on it and the ark contained six billion.
But if the astronaut lands the ship, then he is not using anybody on the planet as means to the end of his own survival. They are collateral damage only. Presumably you could say the same thing about the ark of people who land on a planet and compeltely wipe out its indigenous population with their own diseases if that is what they had to do to survive.
Do you believe in consequences that are foreseen but not intended? Could the astronaut say that he could foresee the deaths of the people on the planet without in some way intending it?
He knows what will happen if he lands the ship. He knows that he will not die if he lands the ship, but everybody else will die if he does, so he is forced to choose between killing himself and killing everybody else on the planet. He cannot help the fact that somebody is going to die, but he can help how many people this will be.
But this would mean that the ark is justified in landing its ship. I still think that some intuitions of pristinity versus intervention are here being employed, and that the astronaut is wrong to do what he does because it will intervene in the private lives of the people on the planet. The situation would be the same if it were six billion people on the ship and just one person on the planet. If you land the ship on the planet, then you are using the planet as means to an end of your own survival. If your use of the planet affects everybody else on that planet, then they also become part of the things that you are using as means to the end of your own survival. Because they would not want to die and you are killing them, therefore, that is why you are using them as mere means to ends. Therefore, because you are using them as mere means to ends, you are doing the wrong thing by landing the ship irrespective of the number of people involved in either party.
This goes back to the astronaut scenario. I think that the astronaut does have an altruistic duty to kill himself in that situation. But the reason for that is not that it is the outcome that maximises the good consequences for the planet. It is because it is the only way to treat the people living on that planet as ends in themselves, and not merely as a means to an end of his own survival. Landing the ship would interfere with the natural development of their lives in the most egregious way possible, and that is wrong.
That is why number does not matter to the determination of right and wrong. That is why if the situation is reversed, and an ark of people who may need to survive by landing their ship onto a planet, cannot do so if their diseases would kill the indigenous population on that planet. This is true even if the ark contained ten times as many people on it as did the planet. It is even true if the planet contained one person on it and the ark contained six billion.
But if the astronaut lands the ship, then he is not using anybody on the planet as means to the end of his own survival. They are collateral damage only. Presumably you could say the same thing about the ark of people who land on a planet and compeltely wipe out its indigenous population with their own diseases if that is what they had to do to survive.
Do you believe in consequences that are foreseen but not intended? Could the astronaut say that he could foresee the deaths of the people on the planet without in some way intending it?
He knows what will happen if he lands the ship. He knows that he will not die if he lands the ship, but everybody else will die if he does, so he is forced to choose between killing himself and killing everybody else on the planet. He cannot help the fact that somebody is going to die, but he can help how many people this will be.
But this would mean that the ark is justified in landing its ship. I still think that some intuitions of pristinity versus intervention are here being employed, and that the astronaut is wrong to do what he does because it will intervene in the private lives of the people on the planet. The situation would be the same if it were six billion people on the ship and just one person on the planet. If you land the ship on the planet, then you are using the planet as means to an end of your own survival. If your use of the planet affects everybody else on that planet, then they also become part of the things that you are using as means to the end of your own survival. Because they would not want to die and you are killing them, therefore, that is why you are using them as mere means to ends. Therefore, because you are using them as mere means to ends, you are doing the wrong thing by landing the ship irrespective of the number of people involved in either party.