In English class recently, we had an activity in which were given a sheet with 20 causes or goals and told to divide $100,000 among the goals according to how much we valued them. The items ranged from global (an end to hunger worldwide, global nuclear disarmament) to national (legal gay marriage, an end to abortion) to personal (lifelong health, happy marriage). One of the primary things I struggled with was the seeming disconnect between the personal goals and the broader societal ones. In reality, most of us highly value education, health, and other things that advance our own quality of life. But given the auction's forced choice between helping ourselves and helping others, was such an emphasis ethical?
This dilemma is part of what makes this webcomic intriguing: while Superman gets a great deal of personal satisfaction out of his traditional role, and his actions certainly help more people than would doing nothing, the economists brainstorm menial tasks that, while less fulfilling, can harness Superman's powers much more efficiently and help many more people. Once Superman is aware of these alternatives, he knows that his satisfaction with saving people directly carries an opportunity cost in terms of the billions he could have saved less directly. This is not unlike the situation we faced with the values auction: while spending the money on personal things didn't preclude any of us from helping those causes as well, the money traded off directly among causes. Does this mean that choosing to help ourselves in such situations is always unethical?
This blog post argues that, for consequentialists at least, the answer is yes: when faced with the opportunity to do greater good, or even to acquire the power to do greater good, the consequentialist is morally obligated to accept. Given the heavy burden that these scenarios place on their "superheroes," at the superheroes' own expense, this seems like it may be a strong argument against consequentialism in general.
No comments:
Post a Comment