One thing to note is that the man would probably harm, not help, his chosen charity (in expectation).
If it was thought that the charity had encouraged the "really extreme altruism", or if it was simply thought that the charity was the sort of thing that fanatics like that liked, the charity would have serious problems attracting others' work or donations, since most people fear fanatical and suicidal mental states. It would need to refuse the money, and refusing the money wouldn't be enough to prevent serious damage.
Deal with the knowledge that a close, trusting friend is going to commit suicide for unconventional reasons
They do not need to know this. Their role is to execute your will. That is all.
Frankly, I think that most people who could inspire that kind of loyalty in others could do more good alive.
Will the money to someone else who is obsessed with the cause. In that case you don't need personal trust. Just game theory.
Saying "this will do more harm than good" sounds wise and sends the desired message of 'suicide is bad and I do not encourage it' but isn't actually accurate under examination.
Shame? Is that the issue? Shame sounds like something that he can't feel because he's dead but that his relatives could feel regarding him because his actions indicate/are their lack of selective fitness.
His actions aren't generally admirable because human preferences aren't set up to admire that sort of altruism.
His actions are generally "good" in that they lead to a better rank order world by his criteria than non-action would, but are probably sub-optimal because at the cost of his life he can probably produce a better world rank-ordering (I certainly hope he managed to at least donate all his organs, but unless the recipients are radical altruists too he's still probably nowhere near optimal)
The man has done nothing shameful: (a) his life is his own; and (b) the insurance company bet, with its eyes open, that sufficient suicide-intenders would back down from their plans within two years that the policies would still be profitable. It lost its bet, but it was a reasonable bet.
The man has done nothing admirable, either; he has taken money from the shareholders of the insurance company, and given it to charity. Presumably this is something the shareholders could have done themselves, if they chose to. So from a libertarian standpoint, this is not an admirable act -- he forced the shareholders to do something they didn't want to do. Even though he did this through "voluntary" means.
However, I can see that if you're of the opinion that it's a good thing to take money from shareholders (who presumably are wealthier than average) and use it to save lives, then I can see how you would think this to be an admirable act.
You could also argue that the insurance company isn't stupid: it may have sold a thousand policies to intended-suiciders, and this was the only one who went through with it. In that case, the insurance company made a profit, and this man actually h...
"So from a libertarian standpoint, this is not an admirable act -- he forced the shareholders to do something they didn't want to do."
No, he didn't. They wanted to offer a life insurance policy. I'm confident that they're not thrilled about having to pay out, but they're not being forced to do anything against their will - only to keep to the obligations they freely entered into.
The man has done nothing admirable, either; he has taken money from the shareholders of the insurance company, and given it to charity. Presumably this is something the shareholders could have done themselves, if they chose to. So from a libertarian standpoint, this is not an admirable act -- he forced the shareholders to do something they didn't want to do. Even though he did this through "voluntary" means.
This paragraph indicates that you believe that forcing people to do something they don't want to do is wrong.
What he should have done was contingently committed to selling his organs on the black market before committing suicide. Then, there would have been a net benefit to his death, instead of it being zero-sum, and his actions would have been admirable.
This paragraph indicates that you believe it is morally beneficial to save lives--in this case, by donating organs.
Why is it that when these two moral principles contradict, you let the first one win?
What he should have done was contingently committed to selling his organs on the black market before committing suicide. Then, there would have been a net benefit to his death, instead of it being zero-sum, and his actions would have been admirable.
Does not follow - the breakup value of your organs is not necessarily greater than your organs working together. Just because someone gets paid doesn't mean that game is positive-sum.
I guess it's an empirical question.
Yes.
A death creates two kidneys. Are there usually two people on a waiting list who need the kidneys and would otherwise die?
Humans aren't lego. Yes, we can transplant but they don't always work and they don't always last indefinitely. We also don't just use them to flip a nice integer 'life saved' up by one. It's ok if the spare organ just increases someone's chances. Or extends a life for a while. Or drastically improves the quality of life for someone who was scraping by with other measures.
If I recall correctly kidneys are actually the easiest organ to transplant - the least likely to cause rejection. With the right donors it gets up into the 90s(%). But translating that into lives saved or 'years added to life' is a little tricky. Especially when we the patients also happen to require transfusions of donor blood throughout the process. We like to say the blood transfusions are 'saving a life'. There are only so many times you can count a life as 'saved' in a given period of time.
I think this post would count as a public statement that would invalidate your life insurance policy upon suicide. Insurance companies are in the business of not actually paying out their benefits.
However, I think we could do some advocacy related to this on the usenet hardcore suicide newsgroups. We might convince some people to delay their suicides long enough to not actually kill themselves, as this meme sounds different than most other memes trying to convince truly suicidal people to not do it.
I think this post would count as a public statement that would invalidate your life insurance policy upon suicide. Insurance companies are in the business of not actually paying out their benefits.
Under U.S. law, after two years, life insurance policies can't be revoked for any reason except non-payment of premiums. If they don't cancel the policy in those two years, they have to pay out regardless of how big a liar you were.
However, I think we could do some advocacy related to this on the usenet hardcore suicide newsgroups. We might convince some people to delay their suicides long enough to not actually kill themselves, as this meme sounds different than most other memes trying to convince truly suicidal people to not do it.
And if they kill themselves anyway, after the two years are over, at least they saved a lot of other lives. Do you know of a way to reach actual suicidal people?
I am not sure I can be rational about this at all, because I find suicide repulsive. Yet my society admires the bravery of a soldier who, say, throws himself on a grenade so that it will not kill the others in his dugout. I might see a tincture of dishonesty in the man's actions, and yet he enters a contract, with a free contracting party, and performs his part of the contract.
So. Something to practice Rationality on. To consider the value of an emotional response. Thank you. I am afraid, I still have the emotional response, shameful. I cannot, now, see it as admirable.
Why does it matter if the man is admired or shamed?
Do generic charities accept and process suicide insurance payments or estates?
Are you planning to do this?
Note the recent movie Seven Pounds.
I'll just come out and say that - if we're allowed to ignore poorly foreseen consequences like insurance premiums going up - then yes, the action is admirable.
Roko: "If I knew someone was capable of this, I wouldn't want them as a friend or partner."
All the more reason for the man to go through with it, since he's so unappreciated and unwelcome.
Marshall: "He needs [...] a real problem to work with."
People dying preventable deaths is not a real problem?
I like this post, because it nails down my moral preferences quite nicely. I would not, under any circumstances do this. What does that tell me about my goals in life? It tells me that I place a very high priority upon my continued existence, and that even the dnation of £10^6 to a very worthy charity, which might save a thousand lives is not worth dying for.
I would, however, suggest that they are lacking somewhat in humanity. There is such a thing as being altruistic beyond the human norm, and this is an example of it.
Reminds me of one of the 101 Zen Stories http://www.101zenstories.com/index.php?story=13 :
"Hello, brother," Tanzan greeted him. "Won't you have a drink?"
"I never drink!" exclaimed Unsho solemnly.
"One who does not drink is not even human," said Tanzan.
"Do you mean to call me inhuman just because I do not indulge in intoxicating liquids!" exclaimed Unsho in anger. "Then if I am not human, what am I?"
"A Buddha," answered Tanzan.
A significant recurring theme in the comments is that the man is essentially forcing a redistribution of wealth.
Speaking for myself, I have no in-principle problem with that. I broadly support capitalism because it is probably the system that gives the best overall result. But I'm perfectly happy to support redistribution if the benefits genuinely outweigh the costs.
"So from a libertarian standpoint, this is not an admirable act -- he forced the shareholders to do something they didn't want to do."
But he also saved many people from having to do something they didn't want to do, namely, die. The balance is still in his favour: he chooses the lesser evil.
Would a middle ground option such as "permissible but not morally required" (i.e. neither admirable nor shameful) be valid?
Simple answer: Is the charity going to do more benefit with that money than he caused his family and friends? If so, then his actions were at least a net positive from a utilitarian standpoint. It doesn't necessarily follow that it was the best action, though. Could he have raised a comparable amount of money on his own to help people with, without resorting to killing himself? If so, then I am more inclined to believe that he simply had decided to kill himself, and took advantage of it in order to try to cause some benefit for the world, which I suppose I can give (limited) support to.
I would be concerned with the charity refusing to take 'blood money', or getting bad press if it does so.
Offering insuring against sucicide seems pretty stupid to me. Like offering insurance against someone burning their own house down. So, presumably, this story is fictional.
I don't know of anyone who has actually done this, but it is indeed possible. At least in the United States, life insurance does cover death by suicide, as long as the policy was purchased two years before the suicide took place. Of course, the person purchasing the policy does have to disclose his medical history, including any past or ongoing treatment for depression, which insurers take into account when deciding how much to charge for a policy (or whether to offer one at all).
Yes, it's morbid, but I actually did the research on this; an otherwise healthy young man might be able to get a 10 year term life insurance policy with a payout of $1,000,000 for an annual premium of around $600 (and a $10 million policy for $6000).
Or, if the behavior became common, insurance companies could simply decline to cover suicide. The problems would arise if, say, a car accident were accused of being a covert suicide (but wouldn't we have this same problem before the 2-year limit?) Perhaps that's why insurance companies cover suicides - for peace of mind, so that you know they won't accuse your corpse of having done it on purpose.
the money was essentially conned from the insurance company.
I don't see it as "conned" (or perhaps I'm inferring some connotations that you don't intend to imply by that word?): The man took "suicide-insurance". That is to say, he signed a contract with the insurance company saying something along the lines of "I'll pay you $X per month for the rest of my life. If I don't commit suicide for 2 years, but then commit suicide after that, then you have to give me 1 million dollars."
I'm sure the insurance company fully understood the terms of the contract (in fact, it is practically certain that it was the insurance company itself which wrote out the contract). The insurance company fully understood the terms of the deal and agreed to it. They employ actuaries and lawyers go over the draft of their contracts to ensure it means exactly what they think it means. No party was mislead or misunderstood the terms. So how is that a con?
Not revealing info != dishonesty.
Optimizing your decisions so that other people will form less accurate beliefs is dishonesty. Making literally false statements you expect other people to believe is just a special case of this.
If you decide not to reveal info because you predict that info will enable another person to accurately predict your behavior and decline to enter an agreement with you, you are being dishonest.
In secret, an unemployed man with poor job prospects uses his savings to buy a large term life insurance policy, and designates a charity as the beneficiary. Two years after the policy is purchased, it will pay out in the event of suicide. The man waits the required two years, and then kills himself, much to the dismay of his surviving relatives. The charity receives the money and saves the lives of many people who would otherwise have died.
Are the actions of this man admirable or shameful?