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

[ 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