Impact Framing: Probability

Impact Framing: Probability

On this issue there is a systemic disagreement between probabilists working on theory-oriented issues in mathematics or natural science and decision theorists who work on practical decision-oriented issues relating to human affairs. The former takes the line that small number are small numbers and must be taken into account as such—that is, the small quantities they actually are. The latter tend to take the view that small probabilities represent extremely remote prospect and can be written off. (De minimis non curat lex, as the old precept has it: in human affairs there is no need to bother with trifles.) When something is about as probable as a thousand fair dice when tossed a thousand times coming up all sixes, then, so it is held, we can pretty well forget about it as a worthy of concern. As a matter of practical policy, we operate with probabilities on the principle that when x ≤ E, then x = 0. We take the line that in our human dealings in real-life situations a sufficiently remote possibility can—for all sensible purposes—be viewed as being of probability zero. Accordingly, such remote possibilities can simply be dismissed, and the outcomes with which they are associated can accordingly be set aside. And in “the real world” people do in fact seem to be prepared to treat certain probabilities as effectively zero, taking certain sufficiently improbable eventualities as no long representing real possibilities. Here an extremely improbable event is seen as something we can simply write off as being outside the range of appropriate concern, something we can dismiss for all practical purposes. As one writer on insurance puts it: [P]eople…refuse to worry about losses whose probability is below some threshold. Probabilities below the threshold are treated as though they were zero. No doubt, remote-possibility events having such a minute possibility can happen in some sense of the term, but this “can” functions somewhat figuratively—it is no longer seen as something that presents a realistic prospect.

Impact Framing: Util = Racist

Utilitarianism promotes inequity and inherently discriminates against minorities
Odell, 04 – University of Illinois is an Associate Professor of Philosophy (Jack, Ph.D., “On Consequentialist Ethics,” Wadsworth, Thomson Learning, Inc., pp. 98-103)
A classic objection to both act and rule utilitarianism has to do with inequity, and is related to the kind of objection raised by Rawls, which I will consider shortly. Suppose we have two fathers-Andy and Bob. Suppose further that they are alike in all relevant respects, both have three children, make the same salary, have the same living expenses, put aside the same amount in savings, and have left over each week fifteen dollars. Suppose that every week Andy and Bob ask themselves what they are going to do with this extra money, and Andy decides anew each week (AU) to divide it equally among his three children, or he makes a decision to always follow the rule (RU) that each child should receive an equal percentage of the total allowance money. Suppose further that each of his children receive five degrees of pleasure from this and no pain. Suppose on the other hand, that Bob, who strongly favors his oldest son, Bobby, decides anew each week (AU) to give all of the allowance money to Bobby, and nothing to the other two, and that he instructs Bobby not to tell the others, or he makes a decision to follow the rule (RU) to always give the total sum to Bobby. Suppose also that Bobby gets IS units of pleasure from his allowance and that his unsuspecting siblings feel no pain. The end result of the actions of both fathers is the same-IS units of pleasure. Most, if not all, of us would agree that although Andy's conduct is exemplary, Bob's is culpable. Nevertheless, according to both AU and RU the fathers in question are morally equal. Neither father is more or less exemplary or culpable than the other. I will refer to the objection implicit in this kind of example as (H) and state it as: ' (H) Both act and rule utilitarianism violate the principle of just distribution. What Rawls does is to elaborate objection (H). Utilitarianism, according to Rawls, fails to appreciate the importance of distributive justice, and that by doing so it makes a mockery of the concept of "justice." As I pointed out when I discussed Russell's views regarding partial goods, satisfying the interests of a majority of a given population while at the same time thwarting the interests of the minority segment of that same population (as occurs in societies that allow slavery) can maximize the general good, and do so even though the minority group may have to suffer great cruelties. Rawls argues that the utilitarian commitment to maximize the good in the world is due to its failure to ''take seriously the distinction between persons."· One person can be forced to give up far too much to insure the maximization of the good, or the total aggregate satisfaction, as was the case for those young Aztec women chosen by their society each year to be sacrificed to the Gods for the welfare of the group.

Morality Good – Comparative

An action taken to maximize utility by a powerful entity like the government is illegitimate and immoral. Acting morally guides the individual to realize obligations to society and represents the only solution to society’s problems
Gauthier 2K – PhD Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religion at the University of North Carolina, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal ()
Mill is especially helpful in responding to the communitarian critique of respect for autonomy because he is careful to emphasize that his conception of liberty is neither selfish nor indifferent to the self-regarding behavior of others. Mill (1978 [1859], pp. 74-75) identifies a number of ways in which members of the community should influence each other toward the "self-regarding virtues," which include education, conviction, persuasion, encouragement, and advice. However, he rejects the coercion of the law and the overwhelming power of public opinion as illegitimate forms of control over self-regarding conduct (Mill 1978 [1859], p. 9). The practical application of these principles from Kant and Mill does not require a concept of the self as unencumbered or isolated in its decision making. Kant's concept of the person, with the capacity for rational [End Page 340] agency, is based on human freedom from natural forces, not our freedom from attachments and commitments to other persons or the influence our histories, traditions, and families have on our values, choices, and actions. Kant is pointing out that we are neither like chairs, without the capacity for choice or action, nor like nonrational animals, whose actions are determined by instinct and the forces of nature. As persons, we are the products of our families, traditions, and communities. Yet, because we are persons, our actions may be the result of more than these influences. They may also be the result of our rational capacities. Moreover, according to Kant, our choices and actions are not supposed to be based simply on our own goals and ends. Rather, Kant believes that the moral law will lead us to recognize duties and obligations we have to others, for example, to respect and further their ends. Such obligations could certainly be directed toward the shared goals of the community as a whole. For Mill, even self-regarding choices and actions are properly subject to influence from others, for example through their natural reactions to an individual's self-destructive behavior. In fact, he advocates our responsibility to help each other ". . . distinguish the better from the worse . . ." through conviction, encouragement, persuasion, and education (Mill 1978 [1859], pp. 74-76). Furthermore, in the category of other-regarding behavior Mill includes the risk of damage not only to specific others, but to the society, as well (p. 80).

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 325.66 Kb.

Share with your friends: