A Few Simple Questions

[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) [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

[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?