Discussion about this post

User's avatar
FLWAB's avatar

As a single issue pro-life voter, I see two problems with your case.

The first, and most salient from your point of view, is the existential risk calculation. The risk of a Trump presidency resulting in the deaths of all 8 billion people on Earth is not 1 in 10,000. I doubt it is even 1 in 1,000,000. Killing everyone on Earth is an extremely difficult thing to do. Even if Trump was more likely than Harris to start the worst kind of nuclear war possible (which I don't agree with, but lets say he was) that still wouldn't be an existential risk, because nuclear war is not an existential risk. Every nuke on Earth could be detonated in anger and it likely wouldn't even kill half of human life (https://www.navalgazing.net/Nuclear-Weapon-Destructiveness). It would be a Very Bad Thing, to be sure, but not existential. As far as AI and pandemics go, I do not expect there to be much difference in effectiveness between a Trump and Harris administration. In the event of a pandemic or an actual AI goes crazy and tries to kill everyone scenario I predict both administrations to be about equally ineffective.

The second objection is that there is a serious moral difference between the murder of 600,000 innocents each year, and the possibility of more people dying due to policies regarding funding and the like. I do not expect this to be salient to you because it is not a utilitarian argument and you are a utilitarian. To myself, (and most humans, really, utilitarianism is not that popular or morally intuitive) it is worse to deliberately kill an innocent than it is to, say, not donate to a charity when your donation would have saved two lives.

To put this last objection another way: if we still lived in a society where slavery was legal, would you argue that abolitionists should not be single issue voters on slavery? Perhaps you would, you're a fairly consistent utilitarian and if you believed that the pro-slavery party, running on a platform of forcing slavery to be legal in all states, would be more likely to fund programs that would save lives and less likely to actually achieve their goal of forcing slavery on the free states then I can image you voting for the pro-slavery party with a clean conscience. But most abolitionists would not, and I do not think they are illogical for doing so. In the same way, I will not vote for the party that advocates for the murder of innocents, even up until the moment of birth (https://ag.ny.gov/publications/abortion-legal-and-protected-new-york-state).

Expand full comment
Kevin Wells's avatar

At what age, would you say it becomes less of a loss if a person dies? anytime after their regional average age of death? Would it be more utilitarianly desirable to kill, say 100 80-year-olds, than to kill 10 5-year-olds? It seems it should be a sliding scale. Perhaps a Logan‘s Run scenario is not so dystopian. perhaps persons who have the most potential life left should be the most valuable. but that’s a little inconvenient because fetuses whether persons or not certainly have the most amount of potential life left on average by time span.

One of the most impactful movie quotes for me is Clint Eastwood characters’ line in unforgiven : “ it’s a hell of a thing killing a man. You take away everything he has and everything he will have.”

It’s obviously true that an 80 year old will have less loss if he is killed or allowed to die than a 20 year-old or a five-year-old or a one second old zygote.

Expand full comment
45 more comments...

No posts