Another Simple Question

[David Sklansky]

This one isn't too farfetched.

An American General needs to pick some soldiers randomly to accomplish a mission. The mission will definitely be accomplished regardless of the number he chooses. But if he chooses only one soldier he will definitely die. (I'm wondering if American generals are even allowed to order someone to sure death, when it is not in incredibly dire circumstances.)

If he chooses two soldiers, there is a 60% chance that they will both die. Otherwise they both live.

If he chooses ten soldiers, there is a 20% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he chooses 100 soldiers, there is a 3% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he doesn't do the mission, seven random soldiers will die.

These are his only choices. The question of course is what should he do. The EV answer is of course to pick one soldier. But some would object to the certainty of death. To them I ask if you would pick the one soldier if his chances of dying was 98%. Another reason to not use pure EV is that you consider deaths to not be bad in a linear way. 100 deaths isn't ten times as bad as ten deaths. If so you would pick the 100 soldiers. But is it OK for a General to think that way? (I'm assuming that he is NOT considering the morale of his men which could translate into lives saved down the road if he chose the path that was least likely to result in a fatality.)

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
This one isn't too farfetched.

An American General needs to pick some soldiers randomly to accomplish a mission. The mission will definitely be accomplished regardless of the number he chooses. But if he chooses only one soldier he will definitely die. (I'm wondering if American generals are even allowed to order someone to sure death, when it is not in incredibly dire circumstances.)

If he chooses two soldiers, there is a 60% chance that they will both die. Otherwise they both live.

If he chooses ten soldiers, there is a 20% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he chooses 100 soldiers, there is a 3% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he doesn't do the mission, seven random soldiers will die.

These are his only choices. The question of course is what should he do. The EV answer is of course to pick one soldier. But some would object to the certainty of death. To them I ask if you would pick the one soldier if his chances of dying was 98%. Another reason to not use pure EV is that you consider deaths to not be bad in a linear way. 100 deaths isn't ten times as bad as ten deaths. If so you would pick the 100 soldiers. But is it OK for a General to think that way? (I'm assuming that he is NOT considering the morale of his men which could translate into lives saved down the road if he chose the path that was least likely to result in a fatality.)

[/ QUOTE ]

we know that the last option of seven random sodiers dying is unreasonable because we can kill one sodier and get the mission done or kill 7 and not get anything done

i would pick either 10 or 100 because by just picking one you dooming him to death
probably 100 because i would feel that if i killed 10 i would be just as guilty as killing 100 and with 100 you dramatically reduce the chances of killing some one

[chezlaw]

He should send himself

chez

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
But is it OK for a General to think that way?

[/ QUOTE ]

I submit the following:

1. The general is a professional. his primary concerns are therefore the legal framework and the code of professional conduct to which he adheres. This generally includes a duty of care to his soldiers, and to his army/country.
If he is legally allowed to send a single soldier on a suicide mission then he is clearly protecting the future fighting integrity of his unit, by reducing the chance of significant numerical loss (ignoring morale). Other relevant questions to make the appropriate utility calculation would involve finding out weather losing 100 men is significant in terms of the future military efficacity of the forces in his control. For the general, viewing the incident in isolation is not a reasonable option. He needs to win the war not just the battle (and the war never really ends.)

2. The ethical position for a utilitarian ethicist rather than a general is more complex, and you have not provided enough information as to the nature of the deaths, its impact on the soldiers families etc. Taking such information into account you could then apply some sort of felicific calculus.

What would I do? Utilitarian ethics are rather dangerous when used in a political or social context - obvious examples of negative application should spring to mind.
For a general utilitarian consideration are fine, because he works primarily within a well established framework.

[m1illion]

[ QUOTE ]
This one isn't too farfetched.

An American General needs to pick some soldiers randomly to accomplish a mission. The mission will definitely be accomplished regardless of the number he chooses. But if he chooses only one soldier he will definitely die. (I'm wondering if American generals are even allowed to order someone to sure death, when it is not in incredibly dire circumstances.)

If he chooses two soldiers, there is a 60% chance that they will both die. Otherwise they both live.

If he chooses ten soldiers, there is a 20% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he chooses 100 soldiers, there is a 3% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he doesn't do the mission, seven random soldiers will die.

These are his only choices. The question of course is what should he do. The EV answer is of course to pick one soldier. But some would object to the certainty of death. To them I ask if you would pick the one soldier if his chances of dying was 98%. Another reason to not use pure EV is that you consider deaths to not be bad in a linear way. 100 deaths isn't ten times as bad as ten deaths. If so you would pick the 100 soldiers. But is it OK for a General to think that way? (I'm assuming that he is NOT considering the morale of his men which could translate into lives saved down the road if he chose the path that was least likely to result in a fatality.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Send 100.

I hope we don't think this is some deep, soul searching, philosophical question.

[ QUOTE ]
This one isn't too farfetched.

An American General needs to pick some soldiers randomly to accomplish a mission. The mission will definitely be accomplished regardless of the number he chooses. But if he chooses only one soldier he will definitely die. (I'm wondering if American generals are even allowed to order someone to sure death, when it is not in incredibly dire circumstances.)

If he chooses two soldiers, there is a 60% chance that they will both die. Otherwise they both live.

If he chooses ten soldiers, there is a 20% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he chooses 100 soldiers, there is a 3% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he doesn't do the mission, seven random soldiers will die.

These are his only choices. The question of course is what should he do. The EV answer is of course to pick one soldier. But some would object to the certainty of death. To them I ask if you would pick the one soldier if his chances of dying was 98%. Another reason to not use pure EV is that you consider deaths to not be bad in a linear way. 100 deaths isn't ten times as bad as ten deaths. If so you would pick the 100 soldiers. But is it OK for a General to think that way? (I'm assuming that he is NOT considering the morale of his men which could translate into lives saved down the road if he chose the path that was least likely to result in a fatality.)

[/ QUOTE ]

If the soldiers consent, then he can do whatever pleases him. The more interesting question is if an army for other purposes than self-defense is justified.

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html

[FlFishOn]

A real CO that knew exactly where he stood EV-wise would have one soldier do the mission. No doubt of it.

He call a formation and asks for a volunteer for an extremely dangerous mission of vital importance. Someone will step forward.

[David Sklansky]

"Send 100.

I hope we don't think this is some deep, soul searching, philosophical question."

How high would I have to move the 4% up to before you would change your answer?

[m1illion]

[ QUOTE ]
"Send 100.

I hope we don't think this is some deep, soul searching, philosophical question."

How high would I have to move the 4% up to before you would change your answer?

[/ QUOTE ]


until it no longer was the best option

[David Sklansky]

Even Pair The Board would not have the temerity to give an answer like that.

[Hal 2000]

[ QUOTE ]
The mission will definitely be accomplished regardless of the number he chooses. But if he chooses only one soldier he will definitely die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any examples of a military mission that fits within these parameters??

[m1illion]

[ QUOTE ]
Even Pair The Board would not have the temerity to give an answer like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your question is one of tactics. Neither morality nor ethics or philosophy enter the arena.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
He should send himself

[/ QUOTE ]
This is one concept that bothered me about the movie Hart's War. The General is much more valuable to the military than a typical soldier, and it would be incredibly stupid to assume that because he is in charge, he must step up to take the death.

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, the President should be required to do the same. And yet we have scores of secret service men who know that it is their job to give up their lives to protect the President. Obviously he is more valuable to the process than several soldiers. (It is impossible to define that value in terms of number of soldiers' lives, but the truth of that statement should be obvious to all.)

I think I would send the 2 soldiers. I wouldnt send 1 guy with a 98% chance, as that is basicly certain death. 75% might do it for 1 guy. Definitely not 10 with 30%. Im not risking over 7 soldiers with any significant percentage, I dont think that 3% for 100 does it either.

[ QUOTE ]
These are his only choices.

[/ QUOTE ]He could choose not to be a general and thus not be faced with these sorts of problems.

[andyfox]

"This one isn't too farfetched. . . . if he chooses only one soldier he will definitely die. If he chooses two soldiers, there is a 60% chance that they will both die. Otherwise they both live. If he chooses ten soldiers, there is a 20% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live. If he chooses 100 soldiers, there is a 3% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live. If he doesn't do the mission, seven random soldiers will die."

Not too farfetched?

I agree with your point that not enough people do the math or know how to do the math. That the math comes into play as often as you seem to think it does, and that it can be figured as accurately as you think it can, is where I have a problem. That you suggest that the parameters you lay down here are not too farfetched, I offer as exhibit A. And yes, I read your discussion of non EV factors.

[chomsky53]

its impressive that you call a question "simple" and yet can't even see the problem it poses. yet another grotesque display not only of your willful ignorance but also of your transparent stupidity.

[KidPokerX]

I agree with Million - send 100. He is also correct in saying that in war, these philosophical dilemnas do not apply. The question you pose is strictly military strategies of war. The correct answer is clearly 100 people.

[Victor]

you need to take into account bankroll as well, i.e. how many soldiers you have.

[srm80]

The Chinese always attacked at their greatest strength, to ensure victory. The correct answer is 100 soldiers.

[BluffTHIS!]

I would choose as my "soldier" a death row inmate and give him the proper training and send only him, promising him his freedom if he survived, which I would not tell him was impossible.

[westside_eh]

[ QUOTE ]
"Send 100.

I hope we don't think this is some deep, soul searching, philosophical question."

How high would I have to move the 4% up to before you would change your answer?

[/ QUOTE ]

I also say send 100, and if there was a 7% or 8% chance the 100 would die, Id think the 10 would be best.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
The Chinese always attacked at their greatest strength, to ensure victory. The correct answer is 100 soldiers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats great, but it kind of ignores the question, in which it was stated that the mission was guaranteed to be a success. Having said that I agree with 100, because it minimises the risk of anyone dying, even though it will ultimately result in more deaths over many trials.

Mack

[David Sklansky]

"I agree with your point that not enough people do the math or know how to do the math. That the math comes into play as often as you seem to think it does, and that it can be figured as accurately as you think it can, is where I have a problem. That you suggest that the parameters you lay down here are not too farfetched, I offer as exhibit A. And yes, I read your discussion of non EV factors."

You have completely missed the point. In two different ways. Firstly my farfetched comment was an irrelevant aside. Second this was NOT meant to be an example where people screw up because they can't do the math. Everbody on this forum knows the EV involved. The question was whether more than pure EV should be considered from a moral standpoint.

[David Sklansky]

"The Chinese always attacked at their greatest strength, to ensure victory. The correct answer is 100 soldiers."

I see now that all of you who said 100 need to read the question again.

[AdamL]

Morality is when 100 volunteer. It's when they all put it on the line for that one guy. The ethics of the thing is not defined by the EV.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
The question was whether more than pure EV should be considered from a moral standpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

"pure EV", quaint idea /images/graemlins/laugh.gif.

"should be considered" I like 'should'. cool term. Almost makes me think, in this context, that you are a religious nut like myself. Listen up.

The answer to 'should' is "depends what you want":

You can approach the question in entirely utilitarian way wih a variety of definitions of EV, see my comment on utilitarian calculus.
If you mean by pure EV the net number of soldiers lost in the long run, then you have to decide wether that is a usefull model for the situation (is there going to be a long run etc.)

If you wish to apply extrinsic emotional factors you could give these appropriate weightings and still do a utilitarian analysis.

Alternately you could use a moral analysis that is not entirely rational, but rather relies either on a non-rational reasoning system (see most religious or 'ethical' reasoning systems. Or you could trust your gut and do pure situation ethics.

I fail fully understand your point.

[Jman28]

He should send one soldier, and choose that soldier randomly.

This makes death the least likely for every individual soldier (pre-random decision).

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even Pair The Board would not have the temerity to give an answer like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your question is one of tactics. Neither morality nor ethics or philosophy enter the arena.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even read the original post? The mission will succeed, 100% guranteed, regardless of the option selected. This is most certainly not a question of tactics.

[fnord_too]

From the General's standpoint, I think 10 is the right answer, though 100 may be better. He needs to think about morale and the team dynamic and what his troops will perceive as the correct answer. I think, and maybe some former military can chime in here, that sending a unit out that has a decent chance of survival would be better for morale, and that is a major consideration. (Ok, you could get around this by saying "after the mission the army is disbanded," or some such wild condition.)

Also, right now, the idea of sending one person to certain death to accomplish a mission is too similar to suicide bombings. I don't think a general would be wise to blur the lines, even if the mission was entirely benevolent, between us and our curretnly most despised enemy.

If you ignore these things, I think the right answer is to go to the group from which any unit would be selected and give them their options and let them decide the number of people to go. That is essentially the same as asking for volunteers. That passes the buck in some ways, but in another way it lets the affected party (ies) decide for themselves if they place more value on the EV side or the life side. (Tversky and Khaneman's work suggests that they would pick 10 or 100, since people are more apt to gamble to reduce a guranteed loss than they are to increase a guranteed win.)

[PairTheBoard]

PairTheBoard has the temerity to say, apply the principle of "never" leaving a soldier behind. But if there are competing principles involved, use your best judgement in balancing them.

PTB

[KidPokerX]

David-
Why are human lives not count in a linear way (10 x 10 deaths = 100 deaths)?

[sakki]

If the mission would be repeated many times I would go with EV choice.

However, if it was a single mission I would maximize the probability of losing no lives and send 100 soldiers.