A Few Simple Questions

[David Sklansky]

Is it OK to kill 100 random people to save the lives of 1000 random people? What about if to save the 1000 lives it was necessary to pick the 100 randomly from a specific group such as Jews or blacks or the residents of Manchester? What about if the killing of 100 results in only a 30% chance of saving 1000?

[snowden719]

no it's not.

No. It's wrong for one person to take away the life of another against their will, if nothing that person did would cause the death of others.

[David Sklansky]

Perhaps you answered this way because I didn't define "kill". Suppose I am talking about redirecting a bomb to a less populace area?

[Darryl_P]

The answers for me are very simple. I value, in order, the lives of the following people:

1) My children
2) Myself and my wife (we are tied)
3) Those members of my race with conservative values
4) Others with conservative values
5) Other members of my race
6) All others

I didn't mention current nation-states as a consideration because those borders have been erected and are being protected by groups with whom I do not identify.

Random lives from the six groups have relative weights of approx. 2000,1000,5,3,1,0 respectively. The first two are not easy to determine and are possibly higher but for the purposes of the question we can work with these numbers.

It's true that the definitions of "conservative" and "race" can lead to fuzziness in some cases, but that doesn't change the overall idea.

Given these weightings the answer becomes an easy calculation. I will always choose whichever has a lower expected loss of life value.

How's that for honesty and political incorrectness?

[Edit]

Note that I am only saying what I would do, not what everyone else should do. If the decision were to be taken by a group of people democratically the most logical would be if everyone did a similar analysis with their own weightings and voted accordingly.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it OK to kill 100 random people to save the lives of 1000 random people? What about if to save the 1000 lives it was necessary to pick the 100 randomly from a specific group such as Jews or blacks or the residents of Manchester? What about if the killing of 100 results in only a 30% chance of saving 1000?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask something less stupid.

[David Sklansky]

"Given these weightings the answer becomes an easy calculation. I will always choose whichever has a lower expected loss of life value.

How's that for honesty and political incorrectness?"

Which means that you would choose to kill the 100 if your family isn't involved, except in case three if the hundred was picked exclusively from the five point category.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
The answers for me are very simple. I value, in order, the lives of the following people:

1) My children
2) Myself and my wife (we are tied)
3) Those members of my race with conservative values
4) Others with conservative values
5) Other members of my race
6) All others

[/ QUOTE ]

For me I value numbers 1 and 2 as equal, 3-6 as less equal than 1 and 2 but equal to each other, I also have a special category 7 for Nazis and xenophobes who I'd like to reduce into a fine pate and feed to pigs.

Also I think it is unimportant what any individual thinks about the OP question, because of such meaningless preferences as illustrated above. I don't know the answer yet, I'm going to think about it before I give one.

[ QUOTE ]
Given these weightings the answer becomes an easy calculation. I will always choose whichever has a lower expected loss of life value.

How's that for honesty and political incorrectness?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wonderful.

Mack

[David Sklansky]

"Ask something less stupid"

What's funny about that response is that I don't think anyone here would lay 3-1 as to which side he was on. (I'd make him 60% to believe that you shouldn't kill the 100)

[David Sklansky]

"I don't know the answer yet, I'm going to think about it before I give one."

Did you mean to say "I don't know my answer yet"?

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
"Given these weightings the answer becomes an easy calculation. I will always choose whichever has a lower expected loss of life value.

How's that for honesty and political incorrectness?"

Which means that you would choose to kill the 100 if your family isn't involved, except in case three if the hundred was picked exclusively from the five point category.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how his answer solves anything personally, who would he kill if it was 100 Africans and 1000 Belgians (assuming hes from the US), he values both at zero, I guess his apathy would take over and the Belgians would be obliterated (not an altogether bad thing imo) /images/graemlins/tongue.gif. Or if his wife and children were involved in the 100, then he would be prepared to condemn the whole population of China to save them.

Mack

[John Ho]

Racist.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't know the answer yet, I'm going to think about it before I give one."

Did you mean to say "I don't know my answer yet"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course.

Mack

[usmhot]

[ QUOTE ]
1) My children
2) Myself and my wife (we are tied)
3) Those members of my race with conservative values
4) Others with conservative values
5) Other members of my race
6) All others
.....
Random lives from the six groups have relative weights of approx. 2000,1000,5,3,1,0 respectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you for real??? No value for anyone who doesn't share your 'conservatism' and isn't the same race???? Seriously??? What the hell is wrong with you????? And you have the gall to post that in a public forum????

Here's my version

1. My family (cos I'm human and can't help valuing them higher than others)
2. All other ordinary decent human beings (even the guy who cut me up this morning on the way in to work - I forgive you mate!)
3. Hitler, Stalin, child molesters, rapists, killers, terrorists and all bigots like you (Darryl_P)

If I were really faced with that choice I think I'd divert the bomb to the 100, but know I would live the rest of my life tortured with guilt with one small ray of contentment if Darryl_P was in the 100. Now, I recognise the subtle irony that that too makes me a bigot in some ways, but I believe its a little better justified than on the basis of race!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
The answers for me are very simple. I value, in order, the lives of the following people:

1) My children
2) Myself and my wife (we are tied)
3) Those members of my race with conservative values
4) Others with conservative values
5) Other members of my race
6) All others


How's that for honesty and political incorrectness?


[/ QUOTE ]

In all fairness to conservatives, I think you should edit the word conservative to facist to more accuratly identify your preferred political views.

One other question, would you really divert the missle to a remote Mexican town (killing 100 hispanic Christians) in order to save 999 Jews along with 1 liberal WASP in some Isreal city.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Which means that you would choose to kill the 100 if your family isn't involved, except in case three if the hundred was picked exclusively from the five point category.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd estimate a random group of 1000 chosen from the world's population to have about 1500 points on my scale, which is still higher than the 500 in the group of 100 you mention, so if you are asking about the 30% probability case then I say yes, but if it's the 100% probability case then I would still choose the 100 even if they are all 5-pointers.

[Edit]

Before you ask whether I would sacrifice my own life to save 1000 random people I think I should modify my first two weights to 2N and N, where N >> 1000.

Having said that, if there is a societal element to it, ie. that my sacrificing my life would become public and my children could benefit from it in a substantial way, then the calculation would involve those subjective factors being added in as well at levels that could easily change the final decision.

The pure formula-based answer assumes no societal or PR-type issues, just a decision to be made by me (or a group of which I am a member), the details of which remain unknown to anyone else.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it OK to kill 100 random people to save the lives of 1000 random people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not ok, but if you're talking about diverting a bomb its not ok to do nothing either.

Sometimes you have to do things that aren't ok. The big danger comes when you begin to persuade youself that its ok. Do what you have to do but recognise it was a terrible thing.

chez

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
In all fairness to conservatives, I think you should edit the word conservative to facist to more accuratly identify your preferred political views.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. I stand by what I said. If those conservatives feel offended, that's fine. I will still value their lives somewhat even if they don't value mine.

[ QUOTE ]
One other question, would you really divert the missle to a remote Mexican town (killing 100 hispanic Christians) in order to save 999 Jews along with 1 liberal WASP in some Isreal city.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Isrealis in this example would be worth about 1500 points on my scale, if my understanding is correct that about half of Israel is conservative.

The Mexican town would be worth 300 points so I'd choose to lose 300 rather than 1500.

I'm not sure how the liberal WASP affects anything since he's worth 1 point compared to the 1.5 average for Israel.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it OK to kill 100 random people to save the lives of 1000 random people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not ok, but if you're talking about diverting a bomb its not ok to do nothing either.

Sometimes you have to do things that aren't ok. The big danger comes when you begin to persuade youself that its ok. Do what you have to do but recognise it was a terrible thing.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Best.

PairTheBoard

[Piers]

I would ‘play it by ear’.

Chances are I would stand around scratching my head and looking confused until it was too late to do anything.

Was that Manchester UK (near Liverpool) or somewhere else?

I think everything is OK

But were I to believe in morals and such, I would probably think killing 100 to save 1000 rando's is OK, furthermore, not killing the 100 is not OK

Also, just based on knowledge of a person's race I would value all lives about the same, this could change as I get to know the person (Is he a murderer, rapist, charitable person etc.)

And as for the 30% question, same answer, it is OK, I go by EV

[ QUOTE ]
"Ask something less stupid"

What's funny about that response is that I don't think anyone here would lay 3-1 as to which side he was on. (I'd make him 60% to believe that you shouldn't kill the 100)

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh.

Stop spreading collectivist ideas. You sound like your president.

[jester710]

Given the warm response that Daryl has gotten, it seems clear that most people believe that the life of one random person is equal to the life of another random person. If this is true, then it seems clear that one would have to kill the 100 to save the 1000 if given no other options.

It seems, though, that those values change when applied to certain specific groups. Nobody seems like they would mind terribly if 100 child molestors were killed to save 1000 children, but I doubt anyone would support the opposite scenario.

As far as whether it's still a good idea when you only have a 30% success rate, if you did it ten times, 7700 people would die the 7 times it failed, whereas 2700 people would live the 3 times it worked (3 * 1000 - the 100 we had to kill 3 times....persistent bastards). So it seems like a clear laydown based on the pot odds.

[laurentia]

Generally if one is more then 30 IQ points above his polemists then they (the polemists) cannot be right. And here Darryl seems to have that edge...

[Kripke]

As a graduate student in philosophy, I'll be waiting anxiously for your 'answer' to this question. Mainly due to the fact that questions like these have been discussed excessively since on the one hand Bentham, Mill, Rousseau introduced utilitarianism and on the other hand since Kant argued for moral rights. Since no general consesus on these questions exist today, I would feel absolutely astonished if you were able to come up with some viable answer to this question. And an answer to which a counter-argument cannot be devised.

The problem with asking questions like these is that it trades on rather vague intuitions on ethics and morality. If someone were to argue that you should never kill 100 innocent people in order to save a 1000 others, it becomes quite easy to tweak the example such that this position looks absurd. Suppose you asked instead, is it ever ok to kill 1 innocent person if this was the only possible way to save the entire world's population from immediate death? Someone insisting on moral rights would be hard pressed to answer 'no' in this situation. But why should there be any difference in principle between these two scenarios.

But, similarly, as a counter-argument against a person arguing that it is ok to kill 100 innocent people to save a 1000 innocent people, consider the following. A doctor has five very ill patients who will all die unless they have an organ transplanted into their bodies. These are all otherwise healthy young people who could lead a good and happy life if only they could have these organs transplanted into their bodies and thus avoid dying. Suppose the doctor discovers during the routine check of a different patient that this patient has the perfect profile to save these five innocent people, because his organs are excellent in quality and fit these five sick patients. For the person who argues that it is ok to kill a 100 people to save a 1000 people, it now seems to follow that it is ok for the doctor to kill this otherwise unknowing and absolutely innocent patient going in for a routine check in order to save the fice sick patients. Intuitively, I think most people would find this absurd as well.

Just some quick thoughts. These examples and many many more can be found in numerous articles on normative and meta-ethics.

- Kripke

[Kripke]

Too bad Hitler Jugend doesn't exist anymore. You are a perfect candidate for membership.

- Kripke

1. From a math, logical point of view, yes it is OK to kill 100 to save 1000.
2. All lives are of equal value.
3. Always from the same point of view, one shouldn’t sacrifice 100 for a 30% chance of saving 1000.

Excuse my weakness, but I am too human to decide about other people’s lives. Even if I was forced to choose between 100 and 1000, still my decision would be none.
I have another simple question. What if someone made you believe that by killing 100 you are going to save 1000? What if you discover that by killing 100 you just killed 100 and nobody was saved?

[Warren Whitmore]

Given that the greatest negative effect on standard of living is overpopulation I would have to pass on either option. Now if you were to save 100 and kill 1000 that would be more like it.

[Hofzinser]

Are you for real??? No value for anyone who doesn't share your 'conservatism' and isn't the same race???? Seriously??? What the hell is wrong with you????? And you have the gall to post that in a public forum????

Well said, that man (as well as the rest of your post).

I can't believe more people haven't commented on this disgusting post from someone who is clearly an ignorant, racist idiot. What's brought you here - is the KKK board down or something?

[Kripke]

Why don't you kill yourself to diminish the problem?

- Kripke

[Hofzinser]

Generally if one is more then 30 IQ points above his polemists then they (the polemists) cannot be right. And here Darryl seems to have that edge...

People who say 'polemist' when they clearly mean 'polemicist' are really in no position to cast judgements upon the IQs of others.

(And given that you say 'polemist' twice it's clearly ignorance rather than a typo.)

[RJT]

David,

When you described the question as simple, were you directing it to simple minded folk?

RJT

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Generally if one is more then 30 IQ points above his polemists then they (the polemists) cannot be right. And here Darryl seems to have that edge...

People who say 'polemist' when they clearly mean 'polemicist' are really in no position to cast judgements upon the IQs of others.

(And given that you say 'polemist' twice it's clearly ignorance rather than a typo.)

[/ QUOTE ]

My dictionary shows them both to mean the same thing.

PairTheBoard

[Warren Whitmore]

That would not be random.

Mr. Sklansky,

Your question is an interesting ethical question, that, as another poster pointed out, has troubled philosophers for hundreds of years. Most of the schemes proposed to solve your first question seem to ignore one of your stipulated principles: the people being killed are random. As such, concerns about the relative value of family members, people of different races, (as an aside, I think the racist sentiments baldly expressed by some posters are utterly reprehensible), people with different values, are all patently irrelevant. They address some other question that you did not ask.

In reply to the first question, however, I might suggest that your question lacks sufficient detail for an answer to be possible. There are many nuances to ethical matters, and so for the question to really be answerable, all the facts about the (hypothetical) scenario must be given. If you would, might you expand your example a bit?

Your second question seems to me to be of a very different nature than the first. That is, assuming that one has answered the first, you seem to ask, how does race change the situation? Might it, for example, be considered a hate crime if all the people killed were of one race? This is a provocative and interesting political and ethical question, but again, I think that more detail is required before an answer can be given.

Regards,
Doc Mod

[ QUOTE ]
Is it OK to kill 100 random people to save the lives of 1000 random people? What about if to save the 1000 lives it was necessary to pick the 100 randomly from a specific group such as Jews or blacks or the residents of Manchester? What about if the killing of 100 results in only a 30% chance of saving 1000?

[/ QUOTE ]I've been reading this forum for just a few weeks and it seems obvious that you have a fascination with the numbers game -- comparing the value of x lives with the value of y lives. I think someone along the line has suggested that the value of a single life is not finite so that summing the value of 100 lives and comparing that to the sum of the value of 1000 lives is not a useful exercise. I tend to agree with that point of view.

[ QUOTE ]
The answers for me are very simple. I value, in order, the lives of the following people:

1) My children
2) Myself and my wife (we are tied)
3) Those members of my race with conservative values
4) Others with conservative values
5) Other members of my race

[/ QUOTE ]Do you really value people based upon race? I don't know which is more surprising: that you do, or that you admit to it.

[Darryl_P]

I would say the second one because it is hardly to my advantage to reveal such information in most circumstances, just as those who share my values tend not to do.

In this case I felt some advantages because I expect DS not object since I gave an honest and rational answer to his question. Normally I would risk sanctions on a forum to express such an opinion but since I'm helping the PoohBah in his quest for knowledge I figured the chances of that are slim.

Also I am interested in how people reconcile their behaviors in certain situations vs. their stated values. I feel I have a pretty consistent system and I enjoy both having it challenged and watching how others get challenged on their own internal consistencies.

In particular I find it interesting that

1) Regimes who have nuked or otherwise killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians get support from so many people who claim to value all human life.

2) History books are full of people like Alexander the Great who have dragged living people around town on a rope tied to a horse until they died just as a show of power, and people who claim to value all human life accept these people as heroes of days past.

3) People who could save lives right now by quitting their jobs and moving to poor places to help, choose to let people die instead while claiming to value all human life.

4) Yet a dude who simply expresses apathy towards about 60% of the world's population gets death wished upon him and is equated with pure evil.

Very interesting indeed.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Regimes who have nuked or otherwise killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians get support from so many people who claim to value all human life.

[/ QUOTE ]It seems more surprising that regimes which are killing innocent citizens get support from so many people. Your reference to nuking can only mean Americans, but that was over 60 years ago. Americans and American government have been far from perfect since then, of course. Are you suggesting that the current government (regime) ought to be overthrown because of the actions of a different government over half a century ago?

[ QUOTE ]
2) History books are full of people like Alexander the Great who have dragged living people around town on a rope tied to a horse until they died just as a show of power, and people who claim to value all human life accept these people as heroes of days past.

[/ QUOTE ] Columbus is a much better example, I think. I don't get the impression that Alexander has been portrayed in American classrooms as hero, but rather simply a person of great influence over the course of history.

[ QUOTE ]
3) People who could save lives right now by quitting their jobs and moving to poor places to help, choose to let people die instead while claiming to value all human life.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think it is a contradiction to say that one values all human life, while at the same time making choices that may not have a net beneficial effect on humanity.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Yet a dude who simply expresses apathy towards about 60% of the world's population gets death wished upon him and is equated with pure evil.

[/ QUOTE ]Which dude is that?

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it OK to kill 100 random people to save the lives of 1000 random people? What about if to save the 1000 lives it was necessary to pick the 100 randomly from a specific group such as Jews or blacks or the residents of Manchester? What about if the killing of 100 results in only a 30% chance of saving 1000?

[/ QUOTE ]I've been reading this forum for just a few weeks and it seems obvious that you have a fascination with the numbers game -- comparing the value of x lives with the value of y lives. I think someone along the line has suggested that the value of a single life is not finite so that summing the value of 100 lives and comparing that to the sum of the value of 1000 lives is not a useful exercise. I tend to agree with that point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure lots of people have said the same at some point, I made a thread along those lines a while back, thats the position I have at the moment for sure, I am yet to see an argument that disuades me from this point of view, but i keep an open mind.

Anyway I don't know anything about this guys credentials, although he gives a little bibliography on the site, the matter is not 100% relevant to the current topic, but it certainly overlaps in some areas.

[ QUOTE ]
Preventive Killing

The question of preventive killing arises in many settings. It arose very sharply in the birth of hydrocephalic children prior to the development of antiseptic Caesarean sections. Killing the infant would prevent the mother's death; killing the mother (a foreseeable effect of a Caesarean section) could prevent the infant's death. It arises now in the killing of abortion doctors by "pro-life" activists.[Note 5]

To those who affirm the equality condition of SL, killing one person to save another is not a bargain, even if it is permissible as in self-defense. But to kill some to save more is agonizing precisely because it is not forbidden by the principle.

Most SL proponents in practice are stymied by the question whether one life may be sacrificed to save many. Many support the death penalty, self-defense in excuse of homicide, and certain wars on the theory that more lives are saved than lost. But they resist generalizing the principle to an arithmetic formula.

Whether preventive killing is ever permissible depends on how SL proponents finish articulating their principle. It could be impermissible, permissible but not obligatory, or obligatory. If permissible or obligatory, then again depending on how the theory is completed, the selection of the life to sacrifice (to eat on the life-boat, to deny access to dialysis) could be made to depend on chance, on QL criteria, or on a combination by which QL criteria narrowed the field and chance picked the final victim.

Again, if sacrificing some life to save more is permissible or obligatory, then SL proponents may disagree on the net gain needed to justify the sacrifice. For example, to sacrifice n lives to save n + m lives may depend for its permissibility on the magnitudes of n and m. If n were 100 and m were 1, then few would assent (kill 100 to save 101), while if those numbers were reversed, then many would assent (kill 1 to save 101), even though in both cases the general principle of sacrificing fewer for more is the same. Without supplementing their original principle, SL proponents cannot distinguish killing 1 to save 101 and killing 100 to save 101, although most would distinguish these cases intuitively. Nor (if they permit preventive killing) could they distinguish killing a few poor people to save many rich people, or the sacrifice of the healthy for the terminally ill, the joyous for the suicidal, mothers for children, embryos, or zygotes, and so on, although again most would find these cases very different.

There are strict SL proponents who do not allow some life to be sacrificed to save more life. In the life-boat cases in which the passengers draw lots to kill and eat one of their number, these proponents have asserted that each passenger had a duty to starve to death before taking another life. These proponents would not kill in self-defense. This position is not the same as the Socratic principle that it is better to suffer injustice than to do it; but it would be the same if we added the proposition that killing, even in self-defense and bona fide prevention, is unjust. But the latter proposition is not at all self-evident.

Nor could SL proponents, without supplementing their principle, distinguish a sacrifical act which "saved a life" or "prevented a death" from one that did not. The most that can be done to save life or prevent death is to postpone the inevitable. But postponement for longer or shorter periods, under greater or lesser burdens and handicaps, with more or less capacity for rational choice and enjoyment of life, cannot be relevant to SL proponents. Except possibly for the sheer quantity of time, these are distinctions of quality; hence, to rely on them is to shift from SL to QL.

SL proponents who permit (or require) preventive killing recognize at least one cause worth dying for. Absolute SL proponents cannot recognize any other. Infinite and Maximum SL proponents, however, could in principle recognize other causes that outweigh the value of an individual's life.[Note 6]



[/ QUOTE ] Peter Suber (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/sanctity.htm#Preventive%20Killing)

Regards Mack

[Peter666]

I do not think overpopulation has the greatest negative effect on our standard of living. Surely our standard of living is more effected by the mismanagement of a select number of incompetent authorities who do not deserve their jobs.

I say killing the stupidest 100 people will generate the greatest sum benefit for all involved.

Now the second question which Sklansky brings up is far more interesting and controversial. Are certain cultural or race groups more stupid than others?

[hmkpoker]

Leave the conservative guy alone.

Sklansky asked him a question, and he answered. He wasn't disrespectful to anyone here, and he just gave a frank, honest answer. I'm actually glad he had the balls to acknowledge the fact that he's human and that some lives matter more to him than others.

Agree or disagree with him, but try to show a little more tact.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
Leave the conservative guy alone.

Sklansky asked him a question, and he answered. He wasn't disrespectful to anyone here, and he just gave a frank, honest answer. I'm actually glad he had the balls to acknowledge the fact that he's human and that some lives matter more to him than others.

Agree or disagree with him, but try to show a little more tact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because he gave an answer doesn't mean that he deserves to breathe, or be respected, or looked at as if he is a positive member of the global community. We have every right to criticize him for his beliefs.

[John Ho]

He's a respectful racist? But yeah he's honest. So is David Duke.

[Ass Master]

Those are all OK.

[brassnuts]

[ QUOTE ]
As a graduate student in philosophy, I'll be waiting anxiously for your 'answer' to this question. Mainly due to the fact that questions like these have been discussed excessively since on the one hand Bentham, Mill, Rousseau introduced utilitarianism and on the other hand since Kant argued for moral rights. Since no general consesus on these questions exist today, I would feel absolutely astonished if you were able to come up with some viable answer to this question. And an answer to which a counter-argument cannot be devised.

The problem with asking questions like these is that it trades on rather vague intuitions on ethics and morality. If someone were to argue that you should never kill 100 innocent people in order to save a 1000 others, it becomes quite easy to tweak the example such that this position looks absurd. Suppose you asked instead, is it ever ok to kill 1 innocent person if this was the only possible way to save the entire world's population from immediate death? Someone insisting on moral rights would be hard pressed to answer 'no' in this situation. But why should there be any difference in principle between these two scenarios.

But, similarly, as a counter-argument against a person arguing that it is ok to kill 100 innocent people to save a 1000 innocent people, consider the following. A doctor has five very ill patients who will all die unless they have an organ transplanted into their bodies. These are all otherwise healthy young people who could lead a good and happy life if only they could have these organs transplanted into their bodies and thus avoid dying. Suppose the doctor discovers during the routine check of a different patient that this patient has the perfect profile to save these five innocent people, because his organs are excellent in quality and fit these five sick patients. For the person who argues that it is ok to kill a 100 people to save a 1000 people, it now seems to follow that it is ok for the doctor to kill this otherwise unknowing and absolutely innocent patient going in for a routine check in order to save the fice sick patients. Intuitively, I think most people would find this absurd as well.

Just some quick thoughts. These examples and many many more can be found in numerous articles on normative and meta-ethics.

- Kripke

[/ QUOTE ]

My intuition for Sklansky's original question was that it is OK to kill 100 random to save 1000 random. However, my inuition for the example provided in the counter-argument was that the single innocent person should not be sacraficed. After a moment's thought, I've come to the conclusion that the reason for this discrepency is the fact that the people in Sklansky's question would be killed at random, and the ones in the counter-argument are not. Do any of the examples you've found in the articles actually deal with random selections of people?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I value, in order, the lives of the following people:

1) My children
2) Myself and my wife
3) Those members of my race with conservative values
4) Others with conservative values
5) Other members of my race
6) All others


[/ QUOTE ] You value more the lives of conservative Jews than the lives of liberal Aryans ?

[Timer]

<font color="red"> Given that the greatest negative effect on standard of living is overpopulation... </font>

I'm sorry, but in my opinion this is nonsense.

[spaminator101]

this is a very difficult question to answer

for me it would depend
1 not if the 100 people included my loved ones
2 not if the 1000 people were people who deserved, needed to die (ie. death penalty
3 other wise i would probably do that if it was the only way to save the 1000 people

[spaminator101]

i really dont see how you think it is a stupid question
it really made me think
hey, if you think its stupid i suppose your entitled to your own oppinion , but a newbie telling d.s. that his post was stupid just doesnt sound right to me
but even some one like pairtheboard or notready dont just tell him it was a stupid post they tell him why they thought that and if your just going to go arould telling people that their posts are stupid you better tell them why

[malorum]

Utilitarian ethics are generally opposed by the christian traditions, BUT I can quote Saint Bernard of Clairvaux in his address to the templar crusaders:

[ QUOTE ]
I do not mean to say that the pagans are to be slaughtered when there is any other way to prevent them from harassing and persecuting the faithful, but only that it now seems better to destroy them than that the rod of sinners be lifted over the lot of the just, and the righteous perhaps put forth their hands unto iniquity.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[spaminator101]

while i could care less for most liberals i dont go telling everyone on 2+2 (there are a couple of liberals who im good friends with)
if he was very smart he wouldnt have told us that he values his own race over others- i mean he knows hes gonna get berrated

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I value, in order, the lives of the following people:

1) My children
2) Myself and my wife
3) Those members of my race with conservative values
4) Others with conservative values
5) Other members of my race
6) All others


[/ QUOTE ] You value more the lives of conservative Jews than the lives of liberal Aryans ?

[/ QUOTE ]

If he actually found out what a conservative Jew's views were, he'd need to do some re-evaluation. However, he probably never will.

[jester710]

[ QUOTE ]

Again, if sacrificing some life to save more is permissible or obligatory, then SL proponents may disagree on the net gain needed to justify the sacrifice. For example, to sacrifice n lives to save n + m lives may depend for its permissibility on the magnitudes of n and m. If n were 100 and m were 1, then few would assent (kill 100 to save 101), while if those numbers were reversed, then many would assent (kill 1 to save 101), even though in both cases the general principle of sacrificing fewer for more is the same. Without supplementing their original principle, SL proponents cannot distinguish killing 1 to save 101 and killing 100 to save 101, although most would distinguish these cases intuitively. Nor (if they permit preventive killing) could they distinguish killing a few poor people to save many rich people, or the sacrifice of the healthy for the terminally ill, the joyous for the suicidal, mothers for children, embryos, or zygotes, and so on, although again most would find these cases very different.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is an excellent point. I doubt many people would say that one person should not be killed to save a million, even though that's fundamentally the same question. From a moral standpoint, however, there should be no difference in killing one to save a million or in killing 100 to save 101, if indeed the value of a life isn't finite.

I think this is especially interesting when applied to Christian theology. One of the basic tenets of that faith is that God didn't have to let His Son die, but chose to to save all of us. However, if we were to state that it is morally correct to kill one person to save millions, than one could make the case that Jesus was morally obligated to die on the cross, whether he "wanted" to or not.

Anyway, I think a lot of people are dodging the question by saying, "Well, I wouldn't kill anybody." That's not an option under this exercise. Someone HAS to die, and you get to decide how many. If you do nothing, 1000 people will die, but if you act you can limit the casualties to 100. The question is whether it is morally ok to decide that 100 people dying is better than 1000 (whether it's ok to divert a bomb to a small town rather than downtown New York City).

The second question, on whether the values change if the people aren't random, is one designed to reflect the personal biases of the reader. Would it be ok to divert the bomb to Compton instead of Beverly Hills? I don't know if there's a morally "correct" answer to that question, as whichever action you take shows a greater concern for one set of lives over another. There are instances, however, in which many people would quickly and easily express a preference, such as if the choice were whether to let a bomb fall on a prison or an elementary school. At this point, no one has given a convincing argument as to why that would be morally ok, rather than simply emotionally preferable.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
Would it be ok to divert the bomb to Compton instead of Beverly Hills?

[/ QUOTE ]

No...we'd be better off with Compton. Imagine a world without famous people who think they are politicians.

[David Sklansky]

My answer to the first question is yes. It cannot be otherwise. I'm not sure about the other two. By that I mean I haven't thought of a way to reduce them to questions that are not a matter of opinion. As to:

"For the person who argues that it is ok to kill a 100 people to save a 1000 people, it now seems to follow that it is ok for the doctor to kill this otherwise unknowing and absolutely innocent patient going in for a routine check in order to save the five sick patients. Intuitively, I think most people would find this absurd as well."

But it is not absurd. Not if the randomness stipulations were strictly held to. How could it be otherwise?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
My answer to the first question is yes. It cannot be otherwise. I'm not sure about the other two. By that I mean I haven't thought of a way to reduce them to questions that are not a matter of opinion. As to:

"For the person who argues that it is ok to kill a 100 people to save a 1000 people, it now seems to follow that it is ok for the doctor to kill this otherwise unknowing and absolutely innocent patient going in for a routine check in order to save the five sick patients. Intuitively, I think most people would find this absurd as well."

But it is not absurd. Not if the randomness stipulations were strictly held to. How could it be otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

It could be otherwise if you want to live in a world where doctors don't kill their patients because of some utiltarian ethic.

Anyone who rejects crude utilitarianism could have reason to reject the killing of a patient by a doctor just to save other lives.

chez

[malorum]

Assuming I want to be a utilitarian I would ask.
Do they suffer, how long for, etc. and then apply the felicific calculus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus

Alternatively I'd pray.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
My answer to the first question is yes. It cannot be otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the reason for your answer? Is it because of the individual personal benefit to each of the 1000 whose lives are saved, or because the overall saving of those randomly chosen people benefits society as a whole? And would your answer still apply to a situation where those 100 were killed in order that their body parts be harvested and used to save/enhance the lives of the 1000?

A related general question is, is the murder of one individual less reprehensible than the murder of many?

[David Sklansky]

Absolute randomness must be maintained for my answers to be irrefutable. So in the doctor example you would have to have a situation where six similar people in a room were told that five were about to die and one will live, unless they all voted to reverse it. Which they would of course.

[David Sklansky]

Is it OK to kill 100 random people to save the lives of 1000 random people?

Its not ok, but if you're talking about diverting a bomb its not ok to do nothing either.

Sometimes you have to do things that aren't ok. The big danger comes when you begin to persuade youself that its ok. Do what you have to do but recognise it was a terrible thing.

chez


Best.

PairTheBoard

I don't disagree at all. I used the word OK to mean acceptable. Meanwhile I wonder why your words "Do what you have to do but recognise it was a terrible thing" aren't used more often by abortion proponents.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolute randomness must be maintained for my answers to be irrefutable. So in the doctor example you would have to have a situation where six similar people in a room were told that five were about to die and one will live, unless they all voted to reverse it. Which they would of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

its only irrefutable if you have some desire to maximise human lives saved. getting dieing people to vote doesn't change anything about the right/wrong of the situation.


chez

[David Sklansky]

Yes. The assumption is that it is better if fewer people die, barring any other knowledge about the situation. Warren Whitmore doesn't agree so to him the questions are pointless.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. The assumption is that it is better if fewer people die, barring any other knowledge about the situation. Warren Whitmore doesn't agree so to him the questions are pointless.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we do know something about this situation. There is a doctor-patient relationship which shouldn't allow the doctor to make decision for the patient. If the patient was offered the choice of whether to die to save 5 others that might be different.

I believe the doctor making the decision for the patient is significantly worse than allowing the other 5 to die.

chez

[m1illion]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it OK to kill 100 random people to save the lives of 1000 random people?

[/ QUOTE ] No
[ QUOTE ]
What about if to save the 1000 lives it was necessary to pick the 100 randomly from a specific group such as Jews or blacks or the residents of Manchester?

[/ QUOTE ]No
[ QUOTE ]
What about if the killing of 100 results in only a 30% chance of saving 1000?

[/ QUOTE ]No


I will never get this minute back.

[ QUOTE ]
i really dont see how you think it is a stupid question
it really made me think
hey, if you think its stupid i suppose your entitled to your own oppinion , but a newbie telling d.s. that his post was stupid just doesnt sound right to me
but even some one like pairtheboard or notready dont just tell him it was a stupid post they tell him why they thought that and if your just going to go arould telling people that their posts are stupid you better tell them why

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is stupid because is presupposes a power that could morally justify any of the named actions. No such power can be morally justified.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that the current government (regime) ought to be overthrown because of the actions of a different government over half a century ago?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. I think it's noble that a country stands up for itself, drops bombs, etc. when it feels it has to protect national interests. But when you do, don't pretend the lives you just exterminated are of any non-negligible value compared to those of your own kind. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy in those supporters of such a regime, past and present, who make statements claiming all human lives have more or less equal value to them.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it is a contradiction to say that one values all human life, while at the same time making choices that may not have a net beneficial effect on humanity.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then let me add the words "more or less equally" to the claim of valuing all human life (a claim many still make). Now there is hypocrisy because just 1% of the US GDP, not just in dollars but in manpower, would not only save millions of African lives but would start various programs to make a lasting, long-term difference. I agree just keeping them alive doesn't help them long term, but with those kinds of resources available there has to be a way to do something truly beneficial, saving lives all the while.

The reason that the 1% doesn't go to Africa but rather to support domestic causes (relative luxury items compared to the basic needs of Africa) is that Americans care more about other Americans than they do about Africans. Much, much more. And that's the way it should be IMO, just minus the hypocritical BS.

[ QUOTE ]
Which dude is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's me. Some pretty nasty stuff was said in response to my post, such as "I also have a special category 7 for Nazis and xenophobes who I'd like to reduce into a fine pate and feed to pigs.", from page 1 of this thread.

Again, my point here is not that I'm offended, but rather just pointing out the stark contrast in the extreme emotional reaction to something relatively mild vs. some seriously nasty stuff being tacitly approved by the same people.

[Kripke]

You are making a very basic mistake in your reasoning David. When we are trying to establish what is morally correct or ethically sound, we can only rely on moral or ethical intuitions. That is precisely the point I'm trying to make. While it may seem morally correct, intuitively, to kill 100 people in order to save 1000 people or as in the case I gave, 1 person for the rest of the world, it seems equally counter-intuitive that it is morally permissible for the doctor to kill an innocent patient coming in for a routine check.

What is the flaw in the theory then? The flaw is that we start with some basic assumptions about what is morally permissible based on intuitions regarding morality. We then substract from that intuition the key premise in our theory, say 'in order to act morally correct, maximizing overall welfare is the number one priority (or maximixing the number of lives saved etc.) This then results in legitimizing actions which intuitively seem clearly morally incorrect. So, now there is a problem. We want a moral theory that adheres to basic moral intuitions, but it seems that our intuitions are in conflict. This seems to indicate that there is something wrong with the basic premises we substract from our initial intuition.

Likewise had your starting point been 'Is it ok for a doctor to kill an innocent patient coming in for a routine check in order to save two other patients?', most people would have replied 'no, it is not ok'. Now, if the 'random stipulations were strictly held to', we would have to conclude that it is not ok to kill one innocent person even if that is the only possible way to save the rest of the world's population.

This problem have been discussed excessively in the philosophical literature. Moore's open question argument is a clear explanation and argument as to why this randomness results in defect moral theories. There has been written a countless number of articles regarding this argument which you might find interesting.

- Kripke

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
You value more the lives of conservative Jews than the lives of liberal Aryans ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not, yes. Political ideology is a more important consideration than race in my book, even though I'm the resident "racist" by the consensus here.

The way I see it: Liberalism threatens us all (all conservatives I mean) and since the threat is global, we must co-operate if we want to defeat it. Once that's done we can worry about duking it out amongst ourselves but not until then.

Your current conservative government is slowly realizing that the enemy within (liberals) is more powerful and a bigger threat than external conservative enemies (Iraq, Iran, Al Qa'ida, etc.). If they don't wake up soon your country will eventually implode on itself and the conservative regime with the most cohesion and least liberal baggage will take over the world. (Expected timeline = a few decades).

I expect to be told I belong in the nuthouse now, but that's ok...after being minced and fed to pigs I think I can handle that one. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[David Sklansky]

"it seems equally counter-intuitive that it is morally permissible for the doctor to kill an innocent patient coming in for a routine check."

But the situations aren't analogous. Here's how you could make them analogous. First assume a world where everyone knows that 5x people will develop a fatal disease, totally at random, while x people will develop immunity to it that will save the 5x if they are killed. If you go to your doctor you will either be irrelevant, have the disease and be treated, or will be painlessly killed. If you don't go you will die tomorrow if you have it. Wouldn't most people think a law that forces everyone to go today is a moral one?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it is a contradiction to say that one values all human life, while at the same time making choices that may not have a net beneficial effect on humanity.


[/ QUOTE ] The reason that the 1% doesn't go to Africa but rather to support domestic causes (relative luxury items compared to the basic needs of Africa) is that Americans care more about other Americans than they do about Africans. Much, much more. And that's the way it should be IMO, just minus the hypocritical BS.

[/ QUOTE ]
My wife and I spent $100+ on dinner recently. I'm sure there were ways in which we could have better spent that money in terms of net beneficial effect on humanity. But, I don't think that necessarily means we don't value human life.

Sure, there are human lives I value more than others, specifically those that I know and like. For me, nationality has nothing to do with it. But, most of the people I know are Americans, so my list of higher valued individuals would be stacked with Americans.

I am sure you are right that many Americans value the lives of other Americans who are complete stangers over th elives of complete strangers who live in other countries. But, it is something I don't really understand.

Then again, I don't automatically root for Americans in the Olympics.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile I wonder why your words "Do what you have to do but recognise it was a terrible thing" aren't used more often by abortion proponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe, because politics is no place for an honest debate.

[Cyrus]

Please bear in mind that Sklansky takes out any moral considerations in his formulation of hypothetical situations and the related questions. Therefore, the questions are to be answered, without qualms, purely on the basis of mathematics, probability theory and utility considerations.

Oh and one more thing.

For those who feel a little intimidated by Sklansky's formidable deployment of logic here? Don't.

This is the same person, remember, who, when all was said and done, considered contributing money to the Bush re-election campaign a positive-utility play!

Therefore, he is only human, frail and mistake-prone like all of us.

[David Sklansky]

"This is the same person, remember, who, when all was said and done, considered contributing money to the Bush re-election campaign a positive-utility play!"

Remind me please.

[David Sklansky]

"Therefore, the questions are to be answered, without qualms, purely on the basis of mathematics, probability theory and utility considerations."

I never said that.

[Cyrus]

Please bear in mind that Sklansky takes out moral considerations in his formulation of hypotheticals and related questions. Therefore, the questions are to be answered without moral qualms, purely on the basis of mathematics, probability theory and utility considerations.

Oh and one more thing.

For those who feel a little intimidated by Sklansky's formidable deployment of logic here? Don't.

This is the same person, remember, who, when all was said and done, considered contributing money to the Bush re-election campaign a positive-utility play! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Therefore, he is only human, frail and mistake-prone like all of us.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But the situations aren't analogous. Here's how you could make them analogous. First assume a world where everyone knows that 5x people will develop a fatal disease, totally at random, while x people will develop immunity to it that will save the 5x if they are killed. If you go to your doctor you will either be irrelevant, have the disease and be treated, or will be painlessly killed. If you don't go you will die tomorrow if you have it. Wouldn't most people think a law that forces everyone to go today is a moral one?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's very different from your original doctor-patient case. Now anyone going to the doctor is acting in their own self-interest and should be glad to go. Enforcing it with by law could be moral in the same way as forcing parents to inoculate their babies is generally acceptable.

chez

[Cyrus]

I have no idea how my post "Important caveat" appears twice. Maybe I pressed the button twice. Sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
"This is the same person, remember, who, when all was said and done, considered contributing money to the Bush re-election campaign a positive-utility play!"

Remind me please.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a post (with a link to campaign contributions' data) showing that you (or, at least a "David Sklansky") sent $2,000 to the GWB 2005 campaign. (And your name is not too common, I'd say!)

If it wasn't you, I apologize, but, at the time this was posted, it generated quite a few threads without you commenting on it or denying it. Maybe, because there was no Science page, you were not paying attention...

[ QUOTE ]
"Therefore, the questions are to be answered, without qualms, purely on the basis of mathematics, probability theory and utility considerations."

I never said that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Come on. You are setting up hypothetical scenarios (thought experiments) in order to gauge not so much your audience's moral preferences but our understanding of utility. Your scenarios should be resolved assuming a preference for lesser evil/greater good.

I am advising the audience to go right ahead and pick killing 100 babies over killing 101 babies.

[David Sklansky]

"There was a post (with a link to campaign contributions' data) showing that you (or, at least a "David Sklansky") sent $2,000 to the GWB 2005 campaign. (And your name is not too common, I'd say!)"

There is one other David Sklansky. My second cousin. Professor of Law at UCLA. Graduated Harvard Law School. Clerked for Harry Blackmun on the U.S. Supreme Court. Has written two books. Doesn't deserve to be the second most famous person with his name.

But it was me who sent that two grand. Except not really. Use your imagination.

"Come on. You are setting up hypothetical scenarios (thought experiments) in order to gauge not so much your audience's moral preferences but our understanding of utility. Your scenarios should be resolved assuming a preference for lesser evil/greater good."

That is not correct. I am trying to set up situations that cull down the number of germane principles to one. I often don't even have a strong opinion as to the right answer.

[ QUOTE ]
"There was a post (with a link to campaign contributions' data) showing that you (or, at least a "David Sklansky") sent $2,000 to the GWB 2005 campaign. (And your name is not too common, I'd say!)"

There is one other David Sklansky. My second cousin. Professor of Law at UCLA. Graduated Harvard Law School. Clerked for Harry Blackmun on the U.S. Supreme Court. Has written two books. Doesn't deserve to be the second most famous person with his name.

But it was me who sent that two grand. Except not really. Use your imagination.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who did you lose the bet to?

[baggins]

to answer all of your questions:

no. it is never ok to choose to cause someone's death. even if inaction causes someone's death. i didn't choose to be in the situation where either 100 or 1000 people die. so i am not morally culpable for the 1000 if i choose inaction. but i am morally culpable for the 100 if i do act to save the 1000.

[EnderIII]

"The assumption is that it is better if fewer people die, barring any other knowledge about the situation."

I find this assumption very interesting and do not think it is as clear as many people do. I know that you specified 'barring any other knowledge' and the information I want isn't even avaialable, but I think it is interesting to think how one might respond to this question given different assumptions of net quality of life. While this is not information that we have access to, it might be the type of knowledge that we can make educated guesses about using some sort of empirical standard of living measure. I wrote this in response to a conversation, so it is missing some of the background information but I could fill in the gaps if anyone finds it interesting.

Broad question # 1 --- Why is the ability to remember and be aware of the future important? Does that require that we treat things capable of doing this any differently?

Broad question # 2 --- What is the ideal way to distribute power, resources and in a sense happiness.

Interestingly, I think both of these questions are closely linked. In many ways I think they both resolve down to the issue of variance. As beings that experience variance in our lives (we are not static) we are inclined to assume that variance is good, so we need to examine whether this assumption is warranted. First, I suppose I should explain how they are both related to variance if that is not apparent.

The ability to remember and be aware of the future (planning and such) allows for a more varied existence, you can remember past joys and sorrows and likewise expect such differences in the future. All of this gives you the capacity to compare to the now so that your now is relative to the past and your expected future. Without being aware of the past and future you would have nothing to compare the now to and your existence would seem static to you. I think it is worth noting that it would not actually be static (a cow still has good days and bad) but since it perceives it existence as static (if it perceives at all) it still has no way to reference so nothing ever seems extreme. So the traits we are talking about, essentially allow for greater variance in the lives of beings that possess these traits. Whether this variance is good or not may well depend on the net resources available, which we have no way of figuring out (as far as I can tell) but we can make different assumptions and see where they lead us.

Possible average resources(or happiness or whatever you are interested in..something considered a good I guess is the best way to put it) if evenly distributed (through time if in the case of a single individual relating past and future or over all individuals if considering a group [this is where question two comes in])

Significantly below a neutral baseline – there isn’t much to salvage here and so I’m not sure if it matter much. In order to propel a few members of society or a few moments of your life to any significant good it seems as if you or some people would have to endure truly awful possibly torturous circumstances. I’d probably side with everyone being significantly below baseline at all times than allowing for truly awful experiences. I guess one way to think about is what would be your preferred version of hell.

Somewhat below a neutral baseline –here is where variance I think can do the most good…having everyone have a slightly negative life or living a slightly unhappy life at all moments sounds quite awful. I think most people would correctly be willing to be significantly below baseline at some moments (or have some people below baseline) in order to allow some people or moments to pass above and have a genuinely good experience.

At a neutral baseline --this is the trickiest one and gets at the heart of the issue. Is it better to have a neutral existence or one with peaks and valleys? Is there much, if any difference between living a neutral existence and not existing at all? I think it is in here that we will discover whether there is any inherent value the characteristics we are talking about. I haven’t thought all of this out, but I’ll be thinking about it.

Somewhat above a neutral baseline --somewhat above a neutral baseline seems like contentment to me, I’d find this easy to accept both for a society and for every moment of my life, but I think this is more a battleground issue that is debatable. Some people would revile at the idea of being content all the time. But I’m not sure they’ve ever experienced the wonderfulness of a content sit.

Significantly above a neutral baseline –this one seems the easiest, if everyone can have a very high quality existence, or if you yourself can have a high quality life at every moment, minimum or no variance seems to be the best. This is perhaps where the two questions diverge, some people might think that sure we want everyone in society to be equally very happy, but still want fluctuation in their own lives. This reminds me a lot of theology and the concept of heaven…notions of how can there be good without some bad moments to compare it to and such. I think those arguments fall short of changing anything as they are limited by the way in which we experience the world…in that we assume variance is good because we experience variance in our lives. Living a static but entirely way above baseline life sounds fantastic to me.

My reactions to the extremes (wanting to avoid truly bad things and forgoing truly amazingly good things) makes me think that my opinions may be clouded by my risk averse nature…but I’m not sure, I think there are thoughts at work beyond personal preference.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
no. it is never ok to choose to cause someone's death. even if inaction causes someone's death. i didn't choose to be in the situation where either 100 or 1000 people die. so i am not morally culpable for the 1000 if i choose inaction. but i am morally culpable for the 100 if i do act to save the 1000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about that, and have you really thought this through?

What if you are a commercial pilot on a jumbo jet, and all engines fail and you cannot avoid crashing in a very highly populated area. You have tried to glide the plane as far as possible but you are now stuck with the horrific scenario of making a crash landing, that will either: A) kill approximately 1000 people on the ground, or B) kill about 100 people on the ground. All aboard the plane are expected to die anyway. You have a few seconds in which to decide and the plane is headed straight for the area that will kill about 1000 people on the ground. However if you act quickly you can divert it to the area where fewer people would be killed.

Now, apply your reasoning above to that scenario. Note that if you divert the plane the area where only about 100 people will be killed, rather than 1000, you would be "choosing" to cause the deaths of the 100. Do you still derive the same answer that you gave above? Do you think that it would be morally culpable to divert the plane in order to save the 1000 lives at the expense of the 100 lives? And do you think the only way to avoid culpability would be to let the plane crash where it was headed anyway?

Please don't dodge the question by saying you are not a commercial pilot and would never be, or could never be in a similar situation. A similar but lesser example could be constructed for any driver of an automobile who lost his brakes at highway speeds coming down the off-ramp and was forced to choose between: A) plowing into a crowd of people on his present course, or B) diverting the vehicle from hitting the crowd at the clear expense of running over a few people in the process.

[muckdumper]

in a situation like the 9-11 attacks,when the occupants of the airline jet overtook the terriost and forced the plane down into an open field thus killing everyone onboard and sparing the lives of possibly gov't. employees.i guess it is correct and brave.nobody wants to die.

[veganmav]

[ QUOTE ]
My answer to the first question is yes. It cannot be otherwise. I'm not sure about the other two. By that I mean I haven't thought of a way to reduce them to questions that are not a matter of opinion. As to:

"For the person who argues that it is ok to kill a 100 people to save a 1000 people, it now seems to follow that it is ok for the doctor to kill this otherwise unknowing and absolutely innocent patient going in for a routine check in order to save the five sick patients. Intuitively, I think most people would find this absurd as well."

But it is not absurd. Not if the randomness stipulations were strictly held to. How could it be otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference between this analogy though. The sick patients probably are sick because of lifestyle choices that they could control, meanwhile the healthy person is healthy because he made the right lifestyle choices. Therefore he probably has more right to his life than an individual chosen at random.

[Kripke]

This answer will get you nowhere, just assume their illness was caused by things out of their control.

- Kripke

The vast majority of the people on this site have replied to this question in the negative. This is either due to a blatant misunderstanding of basic maths, which I seriously doubt, or a misunderstanding of what we mean when we say somebody has a right to live, or a right to anything for that matter.
There is a common misconception that when we say somebody has a right to life or a right not to be tortured that these rights, referred to as human rights for the most part, are absolute and so should never be forfeited in any situation regardless of the circumstances. This is just silly. Of course our rights should be protected, and rights definitely serve a purpose, but to say that they are completely inviolable in all circumstances including the ones mentioned above just doesn't add up. Of course killing one person to save a million is the right thing to do, there is simply no argument.
The interesting part of Mr. Sklansky's question has more to do with where we draw the line when attempting to formulate an entire ethical system around this new conception of rights. Does this now mean that it is ethical to kill a person in public for the momentary thrill of millions? I hope not.There has to be some sort of middle ground, where rights are important and protected insofar as it is feasible, but where it is also possible to forfeit people's rights when common sense and reason tell us that we simply must, as in Mr. Sklansky's question.
This is an ethical system which you will find is already endorsed by most Western governments; the U.S. often forfeits peoples' rights to freedom so that they are unable to carry out terrorist activities, even if there isn't a huge amount of evidence to hold them.
Basically the bottom line is that despite utilitarianism being an ugly word and being pretty unpopular in most philosophical circles, some level of it is necessary in our thinking and actions, and as a result unfortunately in some circumstances individual rights will have to be forfeited.

[Lestat]

I believe a true fatalist would answer: Do not divert. The plane will crash where it may and what will be will be.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you answered this way because I didn't define "kill". Suppose I am talking about redirecting a bomb to a less populace area?

[/ QUOTE ]

Droping a bomb is an act of killing people. Redirecting the bomb to a less populated area is an act of saving people.

Stu

[pankwindu]

[ QUOTE ]
First assume a world where everyone knows that 5x people will develop a fatal disease, totally at random, while x people will develop immunity to it that will save the 5x if they are killed. If you go to your doctor you will either be irrelevant, have the disease and be treated, or will be painlessly killed. If you don't go you will die tomorrow if you have it. Wouldn't most people think a law that forces everyone to go today is a moral one?

[/ QUOTE ]

(Nit: even more analagous would be x and 10x I suppose.)

Intuitively my first instinct is to choose in favor of fewer deaths (both in this and the first question of the thread).

But what if the number in this scenario were x and 1.0000000000001x? Or if, instead of killing 100 to save 1000, we could choose to kill fifty million people to save fifty million and one?

If I chose fewer deaths with the original parameters, it seems I should still do the same with the new parameters for consistency, but it just doesn't feel quite as ok anymore. But if one's ok and the other's not, what is the magic ratio marking the point where ok becomes not ok?

[baggins]

"Are you sure about that, and have you really thought this through?

What if you are a commercial pilot on a jumbo jet, and all engines fail and you cannot avoid crashing in a very highly populated area. You have tried to glide the plane as far as possible but you are now stuck with the horrific scenario of making a crash landing, that will either: A) kill approximately 1000 people on the ground, or B) kill about 100 people on the ground. All aboard the plane are expected to die anyway. You have a few seconds in which to decide and the plane is headed straight for the area that will kill about 1000 people on the ground. However if you act quickly you can divert it to the area where fewer people would be killed.

Now, apply your reasoning above to that scenario. Note that if you divert the plane the area where only about 100 people will be killed, rather than 1000, you would be "choosing" to cause the deaths of the 100. Do you still derive the same answer that you gave above? Do you think that it would be morally culpable to divert the plane in order to save the 1000 lives at the expense of the 100 lives? And do you think the only way to avoid culpability would be to let the plane crash where it was headed anyway?

Please don't dodge the question by saying you are not a commercial pilot and would never be, or could never be in a similar situation. A similar but lesser example could be constructed for any driver of an automobile who lost his brakes at highway speeds coming down the off-ramp and was forced to choose between: A) plowing into a crowd of people on his present course, or B) diverting the vehicle from hitting the crowd at the clear expense of running over a few people in the process. "

but neither of your scenarios apply to my statement. my statement assumes that i was thrust into this hypothetical decision at the moment of truth. whereas in your scenarios, i was the one who was in charge of the vehicle that needed to be diverted. i.e. i was the pilot. i was the one who got us into this mess, in at least some respects. here, both choices are resting squarely upon my shoulders.

when i say i am not culpable in the other situation in the original proposition, i am saying that when thrust into the hypothetical decision, i am not the one responsible for getting us into this mess. therefore my inaction which results in the deaths of a greater number of people is not my fault.

to answer your scenarios, though... i would aim the airplane at a runway or the nearest casino. i CAN assume something about the people who will die there. and i would slam on the brakes and honk the horn and steer away from people as much as possible and hope they did their part to get out of the way. i would also drive slower, to purposely avoid such a situation.

moral decisions don't happen in a vaccuum.

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> i would aim the airplane at a runway or the nearest casino. i CAN assume something about the people who will die there. </font>

And what is this assumption? I can't wait to hear this answer. Wait... Maybe I can.

[Dan Mezick]

God knows the answer to this question.

[punter11235]

It means that you value more life of person who agree with you than person who doesnt agree with you on not so important topic (comparing to killing anybody) like conservative or not conservative values.
I think you would have hard time coming up with any respectable ethic system to support such views which implies that your views are not respectable.

[punter11235]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it OK to kill 100 random people to save the lives of 1000 random people?

[/ QUOTE ] ]

I think its ok. I dont see any arguments against but I see many for this being ok. (for example utilitarianism point of view)

[ QUOTE ]
What about if to save the 1000 lives it was necessary to pick the 100 randomly from a specific group such as Jews or blacks or the residents of Manchester?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the same apply with one exception. If I live in Manchester it would be difficult choice cause chance of picking up some of my family/friends would increase.

[ QUOTE ]
What about if the killing of 100 results in only a 30% chance of saving 1000?

[/ QUOTE ]

I cant see why it shouldnt be ok again.

[punter11235]

[ QUOTE ]
The question is stupid because is presupposes a power that could morally justify any of the named actions. No such power can be morally justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

???? These question are not stupid. If power who makes us to choose options A or B is immoral that doesnt mean that we dont have moral dillema here.

[punter11235]

[ QUOTE ]
no. it is never ok to choose to cause someone's death. even if inaction causes someone's death. i didn't choose to be in the situation where either 100 or 1000 people die. so i am not morally culpable for the 1000 if i choose inaction. but i am morally culpable for the 100 if i do act to save the 1000.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is nonsense. Why "inaction" should be better than "action" if this action is not heroic or anything and its just a choice you make ? And its very easy to construct problem with no "inaction" possible to begin with.

[baggins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no. it is never ok to choose to cause someone's death. even if inaction causes someone's death. i didn't choose to be in the situation where either 100 or 1000 people die. so i am not morally culpable for the 1000 if i choose inaction. but i am morally culpable for the 100 if i do act to save the 1000.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is nonsense. Why "inaction" should be better than "action" if this action is not heroic or anything and its just a choice you make ? And its very easy to construct problem with no "inaction" possible to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

construct one then. the answer will still be the same. because the i didn't earn the choice which you are forcing me to make. if i got us into this mess, then it would be a different scenario.

like i said, moral decisions don't occur in a vaccuum.

[J. Stew]

What do you mean by baseline? Are you referring to a state of mind? It seems like you are and if so how is it possible to distribute happiness or 'good' to people's states of mind? I could see a person helping his neighbor paint his fence to which the neighbor feels inspired by the generosity and helps his wife cook dinner which makes her feel good and she is nice to a person at work etc. . . and that echoes in society resulting in an uplifting of sorts but it seems like you're talking about something different. Like a God being able to control people's mentality. I'm a little confused on that part.

Question #1. The abilty to be aware of the future is important insofar as one needs to plan ahead for something. If you need to go to the dentist tomorrow it would be good to remember that. I don't think it has to do with variance which I think you're arguing is necessary for happiness. Variance meaning opposite of static meaning comparing good and bad. Sustainment of good bringing happiness and bad bringing sadness?

Whether something is 'good' or 'bad' is relative to a person's belief system. People's belief systems and notions about good and bad are ideas or thoughts, which are just blips of energy in the brain. The fact that we are conscious beings, capable of planning, remembering and thinking in general should not in itself demand differentiation from other living creatures.

In the big picture of life, I think we should value all living things because its pretty much a miracle that life happened and we're here. Life is rare and whether a living creature can plan to the degree that we can plan, or not, should not have an effect on how we treat it. All sorts of creatures plan and are aware of the future. Squirrels store food away for the winter . . . But even if some creature did not have the degree of awareness about the future as we humans do, it should still be valued as part Life/Nature which I think envelops us all. I think the argument that variance is necessary for happiness presupposes that happiness is based on discriminating good from bad. This is dualistic thinking which is inherently relative to the individual insofar as he believes his own thoughts to be reality. Thoughts are not reality though, memories are thoughts about one's past, plans are thoughts about one's future, they are not real. A hope or dream to be an architect or something can be a driving thought in your head to go to school, study hard, and get a job in architecture but the reality of the situation is just that you go to school, study hard, and get a job.

The thought that drove the action has no substance except for the blip of energy in your mind along the way. So the fact that we value our lives so much more than other living things seems very self-righteous to me. Not that we need to go making love to trees /images/graemlins/tongue.gif but just that the degree to which a living thing is able to plan should not affect its value in terms of life.

Lemme know what you think and maybe you can clear up my confusion in your post I mentioned at the beginning.

[benkahuna]

People are uncompromising in their values when given theoretical situations. They are to such an extent that they refuse to honestly answer your question here (and others) because it forces them to do something with which they are uncomfortable. They just don't get the whole harm reduction idea. Irrational risk aversion pops up its ugly head here as well.

I think in the real world situations similar to this one (choosing a lesser evil) occur all the time. And when they do, I think the decisions people make are done fairly easily.


My answer to your question, especially once you've clarified that it's random people, is yes assuming I wish to overall not allow people to die, which is the case.

Some fear the death of 100. I think indirectly causing of 900 to die that didn't have to die to be a far worse action, irrational and if you value human life, unethical than being involved in the deaths of 100.

[xxJEDIxx]

"The needs of the many outway the needs of the few or the one"

Spock

[PokerAmateur4]

[ QUOTE ]
to answer all of your questions:

no. it is never ok to choose to cause someone's death. even if inaction causes someone's death. i didn't choose to be in the situation where either 100 or 1000 people die. so i am not morally culpable for the 1000 if i choose inaction. but i am morally culpable for the 100 if i do act to save the 1000.

[/ QUOTE ] So then obviously you wouldn't kill hitler?

How can you say that you value human life?

What makes choosing to kill someone wrong? Surely you can't contend that it is the loss of human life, because you are saying that you don't care about human life. You only care about not choosing to kill.

Where's the logic? That is too much to ask probably, where is the morality?