Another Simple Question

[BluffTHIS!]

I would choose as my "soldier" a death row inmate and give him the proper training and send only him, promising him his freedom if he survived, which I would not tell him was impossible.

[westside_eh]

[ 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 ]

I also say send 100, and if there was a 7% or 8% chance the 100 would die, Id think the 10 would be best.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
The Chinese always attacked at their greatest strength, to ensure victory. The correct answer is 100 soldiers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats great, but it kind of ignores the question, in which it was stated that the mission was guaranteed to be a success. Having said that I agree with 100, because it minimises the risk of anyone dying, even though it will ultimately result in more deaths over many trials.

Mack

[David Sklansky]

"I agree with your point that not enough people do the math or know how to do the math. That the math comes into play as often as you seem to think it does, and that it can be figured as accurately as you think it can, is where I have a problem. That you suggest that the parameters you lay down here are not too farfetched, I offer as exhibit A. And yes, I read your discussion of non EV factors."

You have completely missed the point. In two different ways. Firstly my farfetched comment was an irrelevant aside. Second this was NOT meant to be an example where people screw up because they can't do the math. Everbody on this forum knows the EV involved. The question was whether more than pure EV should be considered from a moral standpoint.

[David Sklansky]

"The Chinese always attacked at their greatest strength, to ensure victory. The correct answer is 100 soldiers."

I see now that all of you who said 100 need to read the question again.

[AdamL]

Morality is when 100 volunteer. It's when they all put it on the line for that one guy. The ethics of the thing is not defined by the EV.

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
The question was whether more than pure EV should be considered from a moral standpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

"pure EV", quaint idea [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img].

"should be considered" I like 'should'. cool term. Almost makes me think, in this context, that you are a religious nut like myself. Listen up.

The answer to 'should' is "depends what you want":

You can approach the question in entirely utilitarian way wih a variety of definitions of EV, see my comment on utilitarian calculus.
If you mean by pure EV the net number of soldiers lost in the long run, then you have to decide wether that is a usefull model for the situation (is there going to be a long run etc.)

If you wish to apply extrinsic emotional factors you could give these appropriate weightings and still do a utilitarian analysis.

Alternately you could use a moral analysis that is not entirely rational, but rather relies either on a non-rational reasoning system (see most religious or 'ethical' reasoning systems. Or you could trust your gut and do pure situation ethics.

I fail fully understand your point.

[Jman28]

He should send one soldier, and choose that soldier randomly.

This makes death the least likely for every individual soldier (pre-random decision).

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even read the original post? The mission will succeed, 100% guranteed, regardless of the option selected. This is most certainly not a question of tactics.

[fnord_too]

From the General's standpoint, I think 10 is the right answer, though 100 may be better. He needs to think about morale and the team dynamic and what his troops will perceive as the correct answer. I think, and maybe some former military can chime in here, that sending a unit out that has a decent chance of survival would be better for morale, and that is a major consideration. (Ok, you could get around this by saying "after the mission the army is disbanded," or some such wild condition.)

Also, right now, the idea of sending one person to certain death to accomplish a mission is too similar to suicide bombings. I don't think a general would be wise to blur the lines, even if the mission was entirely benevolent, between us and our curretnly most despised enemy.

If you ignore these things, I think the right answer is to go to the group from which any unit would be selected and give them their options and let them decide the number of people to go. That is essentially the same as asking for volunteers. That passes the buck in some ways, but in another way it lets the affected party (ies) decide for themselves if they place more value on the EV side or the life side. (Tversky and Khaneman's work suggests that they would pick 10 or 100, since people are more apt to gamble to reduce a guranteed loss than they are to increase a guranteed win.)