Ethics Q: The Baby or the Botticelli

[FreshlyMinted]

Classic ethics question, but wondering the DP reaction

We are to imagine a terrible storm like that which opens Verdi's Othello. The pavement of the piazza is awash. Saint Mark's pigeons are flying about, looking for land. The Venetian sun has gone down like a gondola in the lagoon. As we wade along in the dying light, a baby in a basket passes. It is being swept out to sea with the rest of the city's garbage. So is a large painting, beautifully framed, which floats its grand nude by us as if she were swimming. Then the question comes, bobbing like a flotsam itself: Which one should we save, the tiny tot or the Tintoretto? the kid in the crib or the Canaletto?


--William Gass, The Baby or the Botticelli

 

[molten_dragon]

What a stupid question. The baby of course. People are more important than things.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Why is the baby "more important?"

A classic argument for the painting is that the painting will certainly give people much happiness and pleasure for many years to come whereas the child may produce suffering upon growing up

 

[molten_dragon]

Why is the baby "more important?"

Because it's a person, and more importantly an innocent one.

A classic argument for the painting is that the painting will certainly give people much happiness and pleasure for many years to come whereas the child may produce suffering upon growing up

The child may also grow up to be the next Botticelli, and paint many such paintings.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Put the kid on the painting, and tow them both to shore. Then you save the baby and have kindling for a fire to dry you both off. Simples.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Why is the baby "more important?"

A classic argument for the painting is that the painting will certainly give people much happiness and pleasure for many years to come whereas the child may produce suffering upon growing up

But saving the painting over the baby because the "child may produce suffering upon growing up" is only true if you save the painting over the baby.

In saving the painting thru that paradigm you are creating an unaccounted for outcome for the baby's life. For all purpose, the future of the baby (if you decide to save the painting) is null, void, and lost.

Furthermore, if one is to assume that the baby has a family, then I suspect returning the baby will bring happiness.

If the family is responsible for the baby's predicament, then I am sure publishing a story in the paper about the decision will bring happiness to those who read it.

It's insanity, and the Golem-like demeaning, to save a picture over a life-form.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

The situation in question is one from a set of "thought experiments" there are no parameters other than what is given by the originating philosopher so you can't go adding things on through assumption

For further qualification

-The baby is an orphan: we are only to consider the baby as a life, not as an aesthetic or good thing as its role as a baby.

-The artwork is a masterpiece, it is assumed that it can only do good

The question is basically asking would you rather save a life that could be either good or bad or a nonliving entity that can only be good

The sister question is "would you sacrifice your own life if in doing so you would create the greatest work of art ever"

 

[Arch Enemy]

The situation in question is one from a set of "thought experiments" there are no parameters other than what is given by the originating philosopher so you can't go adding things on through assumption

For further qualification

-The baby is an orphan: we are only to consider the baby as a life, not as an aesthetic or good thing as its role as a baby.

-The artwork is a masterpiece, it is assumed that it can only do good

The question is basically asking would you rather save a life that could be either good or bad or a nonliving entity that can only be good

The sister question is "would you sacrifice your own life if in doing so you would create the greatest work of art ever"

Saying that the nonliving entity is drawing upon speculation and subjectivity that are not within the philosopher's question. The canvas with paint and oil spilt on it that is flowing down the stream only collects meaning or beauty or happiness when one applies the aforementioned subjectivity.

I find this question absurd because you are assuming that the canvas incites happiness, while the child cannot because it has yet to be foretold. This question, as you are presenting it, is a double-standard.

Art is purely subjective!

 

[MrFungus420]

-The artwork is a masterpiece, it is assumed that it can only do good

Bzzzz....

It's an inanimate object.

It can do nothing, good or evil.

 

[rathi]

Art is 50% trendy BS anyway. Its possible to perfectly duplicate paintings that are indistinguishable to the human eye, yet everyone would still rather see the original even if they couldn't tell the difference. If the painting is lost, some museum would pay 50 million for some other dead guys work.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Bzzzz....

It's an inanimate object.

It can do nothing, good or evil.

That really is your opinion. What is good? Is it happiness/utility? If so then art is quite capable of increasing happiness.

I agree that inanimate objects cannot be blamed for good nor evil but they can cause it

 

[FreshlyMinted]

Saying that the nonliving entity is drawing upon speculation and subjectivity that are not within the philosopher's question. The canvas with paint and oil spilt on it that is flowing down the stream only collects meaning or beauty or happiness when one applies the aforementioned subjectivity.

I find this question absurd because you are assuming that the canvas incites happiness, while the child cannot because it has yet to be foretold. This question, as you are presenting it, is a double-standard.

Art is purely subjective!

I'm not sure how you mean double-standard. It's a thought experiment and like I said earlier; this is just the tangible example of the abstract question.

To put it in more direct terms, there is a child that has a 50% chance of bringing about great happiness and a 50% chance of bringing about great suffering. There is also a lifeless object that can only bring about great happiness.

Which do you choose? Do you value life, or do you value life only because it brings happiness

 

[molten_dragon]

I'm not sure how you mean double-standard. It's a thought experiment and like I said earlier; this is just the tangible example of the abstract question.

To put it in more direct terms, there is a child that has a 50% chance of bringing about great happiness and a 50% chance of bringing about great suffering. There is also a lifeless object that can only bring about great happiness.

Which do you choose? Do you value life, or do you value life only because it brings happiness

I'd still pick the baby, because I couldn't give less of a crap about paintings if I tried. Babies on the other hand are adorable.

 

[Mach]

I was a baby once.
If I knew now what I knew then, I would want to be saved.

Knowing this, devoid of any other input, I can presume one wants to be saved, the other does not.

Or as someone wrote, a work of art in this case, just isn't that important. Basically that's just the golden rule of ethics repeated.

Replace painting with "crate of life-saving medication" of some specific sort, then it gets more interesting.

 

[John Doe]

There is no inherit reason to choose one over the other.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

I was a baby once.
If I knew now what I knew then, I would want to be saved.

Knowing this, devoid of any other input, I can presume one wants to be saved, the other does not.

Or as someone wrote, a work of art in this case, just isn't that important. Basically that's just the golden rule of ethics repeated.

Replace painting with "crate of life-saving medication" of some specific sort, then it gets more interesting.

That would be another tangible example- although it has to do with life so I dunno. Like earlier stated, the abstract question is would you rather save a life that could be either good or bad or a non life that can be only good

 

[FreshlyMinted]

I'd still pick the baby, because I couldn't give less of a crap about paintings if I tried. Babies on the other hand are adorable.

In the more direct example, it is only a nonliving entity that can only do good. To address your thought process specifically: consider that the baby is hideously disfigured, having no aesthetic worth.

 

[FreshlyMinted]

I personally would choose the baby because I think that life has more inherent value than art

 

[John Doe]

Where does that inherent value come from?

 

[Tucker Case]

Tough question. I hate art and I hate babies.

Isn't there a dog I could save?

 

[FreshlyMinted]

It's inherent, meaning it doesn't "come from" anywhere.

 

[Arch Enemy]

I'm not sure how you mean double-standard. It's a thought experiment and like I said earlier; this is just the tangible example of the abstract question.

tangible of abstract? Doesn't make much sense.

To put it in more direct terms, there is a child that has a 50% chance of bringing about great happiness and a 50% chance of bringing about great suffering. There is also a lifeless object that can only bring about great happiness.

You are presuming that life is 50% suffering and 50% happiness. The child is without a future because the experiment does not allow it.
Therefore, The Painting does not provide happiness nor suffering either because there is no objectivity to painting.

Let me repeat what I've been stating. There's only SUBJECTIVITY to art.

 

[Panache]

This question isn't interesting enough as it stands. Let me help:

Suppose that this painting is worth millions and millions of dollars. If you save it, you get to keep it, or sell it as you choose.

If you sell it, you will have millions and millions of dollars.

According to Keep a Child Alive Just $1 a day saves a life. Assuming this means that each day you contribute a dollar, a child stays alive for another day, selling the painting for even $1 million and donating the proceeds to Keep a Child Alive would allow 171.23 children would would otherwise have died to stay alive from birth until their 16th birthday.

So, in light of this, is the one baby floating down the river worth more than the 171.23 children far away that you can't see? What would you choose under these conditions?

 

[FreshlyMinted]

tangible of abstract? Doesn't make much sense.


You are presuming that life is 50% suffering and 50% happiness. The child is without a future because the experiment does not allow it.
Therefore, The Painting does not provide happiness nor suffering either because there is no objectivity to painting.

Let me repeat what I've been stating. There's only SUBJECTIVITY to art.

You're attempting to bring an argument into this that I'm not even talking about.

Forget about art

Tangible question meaning that this is a concrete version of the real question since you really need both parts to fully consider the question.

Choose between a life of equal chances good and bad or an inanimate object that will cause only good.


This may be utterly meaningless, because I simply don't understand your objections

 

[molten_dragon]

In the more direct example, it is only a nonliving entity that can only do good. To address your thought process specifically: consider that the baby is hideously disfigured, having no aesthetic worth.

A nonliving entity cannot do good. It cannot do anything.

And despite my tongue-in-cheek reference about the adorable-ness of babies, I'd still choose the baby even if it was horribly disfigured.