A Few Simple Questions
 

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?

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

no it's not.

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

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.

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

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

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

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.

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

[ 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.

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

"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.

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

[ 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

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

"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)

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

"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"?

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

[ 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) [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]. 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

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

Racist.

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

[ 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

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

[ 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!!!!

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

[ 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.

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

[ 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.

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

[ 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

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

[ 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.

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

[ 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

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

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?

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

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

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

[ 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.

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

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.

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

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...

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

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

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

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

- Kripke

Re: Another simple question
 

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?

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

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.

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

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?

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

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

- Kripke

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

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.)

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

David,

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

RJT

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

[ 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

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

That would not be random.

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

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

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

[ 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.

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

[ 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.

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

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.

Re: A Few Simple Questions
 

[ 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?

Interesting link
 

[ 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

Regards Mack