| | Hi all,
It's been my experience that Objectivists often have trouble with hypotheticals, and this thread suggests no different. Calling the hypo irrelevant or answering it "outside the box" defeats the purpose of the hypo.
This hypo as I see it is trying to figure out who "needs" the money the most. I figure Sen cares about this because he assumes that giving the money to the most needy will be the best choice in making the world better off.
It doesn't matter whether Objectivists care to make the world a better place or whether Objectivists agree with the "needy" assumption. To quote Aristotle, "it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
If it's the job scenario that bugs you, you could just as well change the hypo to ask: "who do you think would be best off if we gave him $10,000 a year? A poor guy, an unhappy guy who was once rich but is now poor, or a chronically sick guy who could be made well with the money? We don't know anything else about them. Pick one."
My answer: First, there's nothing necessarily wrong with being poor. I know lots of prosperous poor folk. Second, a chronic disease isn't necessarily that horrible...might just be allergies. Hell, I have several chronic diseases, and I'm doing okay.
We also don't know whether the poor guy or sick guy would be tremendously happier with the money. After all, money doesn't ring everybody's bell.
In contrast, the Riches-to-Rags guy is unhappy, and we know he would be made happy again with the money, so I'm going with that guy. I think it can be counter-intuitive to pick him since we're basically restoring a once-rich guy to his previously rich position without giving poor guy and sick guy a chance. Some might even say that my choice yield an aristocracy, a preference for keeping the rich folks rich. My response: Nah. I just want to make sad folks happy.
Jordan
|
|
