|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Another Simple Question
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.) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another Simple 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 ] 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another Simple Question
He should send himself
chez |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another Simple Question
[ 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.) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another Simple Question
[ 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another Simple 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 ] Send 100. I hope we don't think this is some deep, soul searching, philosophical question. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another Simple Question
"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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another Simple Question
[ 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another Simple Question
Even Pair The Board would not have the temerity to give an answer like that.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another Simple Question
[ 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. |
|
|