Topics Ethics

Question All things equal, is it more important to save a young person's life than an old person's?

Accepted:
June 24, 2010

Comments

It does seem plausible that all else being equal it is more important or at least more valuable to save the life of a younger person than that of an older person, because when all else is equal doing so should produce more value. But, of course, all else being equal abstracts from a great many variables; there are many ways in which things might not in fact be equal. Assume A is the younger person and B is the older person. Consider some potential forward-looking differences. Even though A is younger, B might still live longer than A. Or B might lead a much more valuable life than A, either prudentially or morally. Or consider potential backward-looking differences. B might be more deserving of aid than A. Perhaps A is more responsible for her plight than B. Or B might be worse-off overall, and some people think that priority should go to the worse-off. So even if we agree that all else being equal it's better to benefit A than B, there may nonetheless be a great many situations in which all else is not equal and in which it would be better to benefit B than A.

Question All things equal, is it more important to save a young person's life than an old person's? Accepted:June 24, 2010

Question All things equal, is it more important to save a young person's life than an old person's?

Accepted:
June 24, 2010