"I see as the infinite value of each individual human life, and why I think this infinite value makes it impossible to weigh up different numbers of lives against each other."
Bold. This strikes me as the kind of thing Eric Mack would believe. Do you have answer to risk questions?
Yes. In his paper 'The Natural Right of Property', p. 61 'The ultimacy of the value with each individual life makes it unreasonable - in "contradiction" to the facts - for anyone to use other men as means'. Slightly different to your phrase - but I reckon it contains the same essence.
See also his papers 'Prerogatives, Restrictions and Rights' and 'Moral Individualism: Agent-relativity and Deontic Restraints'
If each life is of infinite value and the disvalue of destroying a life is the reason to not do so, then, driving past someone exposing them to a 0.0001% chance of death must also be prohibited, because, 0.00001% x ∞ = ∞, meaning, any value to driving is outweighed by the chance of killing them. How do you answer that?
"I see as the infinite value of each individual human life, and why I think this infinite value makes it impossible to weigh up different numbers of lives against each other."
Bold. This strikes me as the kind of thing Eric Mack would believe. Do you have answer to risk questions?
I like his writing!
is there somewhere in particular he makes this kind of argument?
Yes. In his paper 'The Natural Right of Property', p. 61 'The ultimacy of the value with each individual life makes it unreasonable - in "contradiction" to the facts - for anyone to use other men as means'. Slightly different to your phrase - but I reckon it contains the same essence.
See also his papers 'Prerogatives, Restrictions and Rights' and 'Moral Individualism: Agent-relativity and Deontic Restraints'
and which questions?
If each life is of infinite value and the disvalue of destroying a life is the reason to not do so, then, driving past someone exposing them to a 0.0001% chance of death must also be prohibited, because, 0.00001% x ∞ = ∞, meaning, any value to driving is outweighed by the chance of killing them. How do you answer that?