Philosophy Now Forum

by Adam Carter

https://philosophynow.org/issues/41/Dilemmas

Adam Carter puts forth the proposition: "Although the ‘share-of-the-total’ view can seem like a theoretically-sound strategy, we see that it does not work."

Yes, it does.

All Carter needs to do is to improve his math skills.

He focuses on the "saved" people. In his second example 100 people will die if I choose to save another fifty single-handedly; but to save the 100 people I need to be a member of a group of four, in which none of us four can be substituted.

He calls the math solution wrong: if I save 50, my batting ration is 50:1, whereas if I save 100, my ratio is 25:1, since four are needed to save 100, means the ratio is 100:4. But it is better to save 100, he says, than to save 50.

Well, if I am an essential part of the rescue team in rescuing 100, and the other three rescuers are given to be there, then I CAUSE 100 deaths by not participating in that rescue effort.

so 50-100 is my total achievement for saved lives.

This is -50 net.

If I opt to let 50 people die, at the benefit of helping 100 survive and not die, then my net is 50.

50 is a higher number than -50.

Therefore the math works out perfectly.

Adam Carter made the mistake that he kept making in grade seven: not translating a worded problem properly into its algebraic equivalent.

In the first example it makes zero difference what you do because there is a total of 5 rescuers
So between them the 5 will save II0 regardless of whether you are I of the 4 or the other one is

In the second example you save the I00 with the other 3 as it is the maximum number that can be saved
For there is no point in saving 50 when as a direct consequence of it you then let twice that number die

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:03 am In the first example it makes zero difference what you do because there is a total of 5 rescuers
So between them the 5 will save II0 regardless of whether you are I of the 4 or the other one is

In the second example you save the I00 with the other 3 as it is the maximum number that can be saved
For there is no point in saving 50 when as a direct consequence of it you then let twice that number die

Precisely so what you said.

I am saying that this can be expressed by mathematical means, if you translate the problem into algebra appropriately.

Remember, Carter's proposition is to show that the math sometimes does not work. Well, it does not work in this instance, because he is using it wrongly. If he used it right, like I have shown, it would have worked for him, too.

He uses the term moral mathematics which sounds very ambiguous and contradictory given that maths is objective and deductive
and morality is the total opposite of this . What he is really describing though is utilitarianism which is the more acceptable term

He is wrong to use maths the way he has . Because if 4 rescuers save I00 people then they saved them together so it cannot be
further split up into percentages . As each rescuer did not save 25 per cent but I00 per cent because the rescue was collective
It would only be 25 per cent if each rescuer individually saved 25 people with no help from any one but this was not the case