A Few Simple Questions

[David Sklansky]

Is it OK to kill 100 random people to save the lives of 1000 random people? What about if to save the 1000 lives it was necessary to pick the 100 randomly from a specific group such as Jews or blacks or the residents of Manchester? What about if the killing of 100 results in only a 30% chance of saving 1000?

[snowden719]

no it's not.

No. It's wrong for one person to take away the life of another against their will, if nothing that person did would cause the death of others.

[David Sklansky]

Perhaps you answered this way because I didn't define "kill". Suppose I am talking about redirecting a bomb to a less populace area?

[Darryl_P]

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

I didn't mention current nation-states as a consideration because those borders have been erected and are being protected by groups with whom I do not identify.

Random lives from the six groups have relative weights of approx. 2000,1000,5,3,1,0 respectively. The first two are not easy to determine and are possibly higher but for the purposes of the question we can work with these numbers.

It's true that the definitions of "conservative" and "race" can lead to fuzziness in some cases, but that doesn't change the overall idea.

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?

[Edit]

Note that I am only saying what I would do, not what everyone else should do. If the decision were to be taken by a group of people democratically the most logical would be if everyone did a similar analysis with their own weightings and voted accordingly.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it OK to kill 100 random people to save the lives of 1000 random people? What about if to save the 1000 lives it was necessary to pick the 100 randomly from a specific group such as Jews or blacks or the residents of Manchester? What about if the killing of 100 results in only a 30% chance of saving 1000?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask something less stupid.

[David Sklansky]

"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.

[mackthefork]

[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

For me I value numbers 1 and 2 as equal, 3-6 as less equal than 1 and 2 but equal to each other, I also have a special category 7 for Nazis and xenophobes who I'd like to reduce into a fine pate and feed to pigs.

Also I think it is unimportant what any individual thinks about the OP question, because of such meaningless preferences as illustrated above. I don't know the answer yet, I'm going to think about it before I give one.

[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wonderful.

Mack

[David Sklansky]

"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)

[David Sklansky]

"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"?