The objection
The last chapter measured the harm of death in QALYs: length of life times quality of life. Some critics say this leads to absurd conclusions. For example, the measure would say the death of a very young being is worse than an adult's, because the young one loses more years.
A first clarification
The author shows that the measure does not always say this. It depends on the quality of life each one would have and on other factors. But the critic could insist: "In most cases, it leads to these strange conclusions."
"Absurd" according to whom?
The text asks: why would these conclusions be absurd? It's not enough to say they are. You have to explain why.
The most common explanation is that they're counterintuitive, meaning they go against what we think before we've thought it through.
The problem with trusting only intuitions
The author points out several problems:
- Intuitions have been wrong many times. For centuries, it seemed "obvious" to many people that some people could be enslaved.
- Intuitions can come from biases. The brain has shortcuts that make us get things wrong, like favoring those who are similar to us.
- "Whoever goes against intuition has to prove it" is also debatable. Sometimes it's the intuition that needs to be justified.
The text also notes that many people who use this objection defend other ideas most people find strange, like veganism or helping wild animals. In other words, they themselves accept that something can be true even if it seems strange at first.
In short
- Critics say measuring death in QALYs leads to absurd conclusions.
- But "absurd" often just means "strange at first glance."
- Intuitions can be wrong; what counts are reasons.