moral question

[goofball]

Obviously pure EV calculations yield an answer of 20%. If possible I think this is a decision best left to the 5 people, if I can't ask them I would at least try to guess how they, as rational people, would act.

At 90% I feel confident they would be willing to draw straws. For no other reason besides this is how I would guess 5 rational humans would act, I'd draw the line somewhere around 50%.


In reference to the original question, you say yes and it's trivial. I agree. Now, what they will be killed not tomorrow but the day after tomorrow? What about a week from now? a month? where's the line?

[sweetjazz]

Is one of the five people Vince Van Patten? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
There exists five people. There is a 90% chance they will all be killed tomorrow. You can stop that totally by killing one of them, chosen randomly, today. Should you? If you answered yes change the probability to 40% and answer again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This dilemma requires all the factors to be quantified, including the value of human life. As you pointed out in one of the essays in Poker, Gaming and Life , we would most likely have to set the value of each life at infinity. I don't know exactly what effects that would have on the formula, but I'm pretty sure it means that math is no better as an ethical tool than any other moral theory out there.

Scott

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
There exists a person.

Tomorrow with 100% probability they will be slowly tortured to death. There is nothing you can do to prevent this.

You have the power to kill them painlessly today.

Do you?

[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't the natural thing to do be to ask them this question? Oh, crud...

[fimbulwinter]

obviously yes

fim

[PokerProdigy]

I don't think I would. I just wouldn't want to kill someone.