That’s a good rule of thumb, but it runs into difficulty when you map it to the marco scale.
Whether we’re talking individual human capacity (Dunbar’s Number) or a question of public policy (for instance, in the Trolley Problem scenario) or even just common accounting and logistics principles, people become indistinguishable from things in significantly large numbers and anonymous contexts.
Bureaucracy has a de-humanizing effect on individuals. But bureaucracy is fundamental to administration of large populations. I don’t know how you square this circle without committing some degree of “sin”.
I’m not sure I agree. A person doesn’t need to be in your Dunbar group to still be treated as a person, and bureaucracy doesn’t have to be dehumanizing; though I’ll grant that doing so is an easy trap to slide into. But you can plan for the needs and behaviors of large groups of people without treating them as anything less - just look at something like event planning!
In response to the trolley problem - It does get tricky with something like triage, where you have to evaluate who gets saved on the basis of their injuries. In this case, taking a cue from Weatherwax again, I think the key would be making sure that even those who don’t get saved still get treated humanely - pain relief, comfort, etc.
A person doesn’t need to be in your Dunbar group to still be treated as a person
Not incidentally, sure. But they need to be in your Dunbar group to be seen as a person.
As soon as “treating another person” carries a price, people charged with delivering treatment are going to start falling off of it.
bureaucracy doesn’t have to be dehumanizing
Again, not incidentally. But the impulse in a bureaucracy is towards expediency. You have a large volume of people to manage and a limited amount of time / manpower / resources. So you cut corners in order to mitigate shortfalls or appease overworked staff, because you don’t see the consequences of your actions or experience guilt over it.
I think the key would be making sure that even those who don’t get saved still get treated humanely
I don’t argue that this is the strictly moral path. But it ignores the biases, the capacities, and the temperaments of the people doing the triage. At some point you need people to do the things. And people routinely put their own comfort ahead of others’ health and well-being, because personal comfort is immediate and real while the experiences of others are remote and abstract.
That’s a good rule of thumb, but it runs into difficulty when you map it to the marco scale.
Whether we’re talking individual human capacity (Dunbar’s Number) or a question of public policy (for instance, in the Trolley Problem scenario) or even just common accounting and logistics principles, people become indistinguishable from things in significantly large numbers and anonymous contexts.
Bureaucracy has a de-humanizing effect on individuals. But bureaucracy is fundamental to administration of large populations. I don’t know how you square this circle without committing some degree of “sin”.
deleted by creator
I’m not sure I agree. A person doesn’t need to be in your Dunbar group to still be treated as a person, and bureaucracy doesn’t have to be dehumanizing; though I’ll grant that doing so is an easy trap to slide into. But you can plan for the needs and behaviors of large groups of people without treating them as anything less - just look at something like event planning!
In response to the trolley problem - It does get tricky with something like triage, where you have to evaluate who gets saved on the basis of their injuries. In this case, taking a cue from Weatherwax again, I think the key would be making sure that even those who don’t get saved still get treated humanely - pain relief, comfort, etc.
Not incidentally, sure. But they need to be in your Dunbar group to be seen as a person.
As soon as “treating another person” carries a price, people charged with delivering treatment are going to start falling off of it.
Again, not incidentally. But the impulse in a bureaucracy is towards expediency. You have a large volume of people to manage and a limited amount of time / manpower / resources. So you cut corners in order to mitigate shortfalls or appease overworked staff, because you don’t see the consequences of your actions or experience guilt over it.
I don’t argue that this is the strictly moral path. But it ignores the biases, the capacities, and the temperaments of the people doing the triage. At some point you need people to do the things. And people routinely put their own comfort ahead of others’ health and well-being, because personal comfort is immediate and real while the experiences of others are remote and abstract.