Another Simple Question

[David Sklansky]

This one isn't too farfetched.

An American General needs to pick some soldiers randomly to accomplish a mission. The mission will definitely be accomplished regardless of the number he chooses. But if he chooses only one soldier he will definitely die. (I'm wondering if American generals are even allowed to order someone to sure death, when it is not in incredibly dire circumstances.)

If he chooses two soldiers, there is a 60% chance that they will both die. Otherwise they both live.

If he chooses ten soldiers, there is a 20% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he chooses 100 soldiers, there is a 3% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he doesn't do the mission, seven random soldiers will die.

These are his only choices. The question of course is what should he do. The EV answer is of course to pick one soldier. But some would object to the certainty of death. To them I ask if you would pick the one soldier if his chances of dying was 98%. Another reason to not use pure EV is that you consider deaths to not be bad in a linear way. 100 deaths isn't ten times as bad as ten deaths. If so you would pick the 100 soldiers. But is it OK for a General to think that way? (I'm assuming that he is NOT considering the morale of his men which could translate into lives saved down the road if he chose the path that was least likely to result in a fatality.)

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
This one isn't too farfetched.

An American General needs to pick some soldiers randomly to accomplish a mission. The mission will definitely be accomplished regardless of the number he chooses. But if he chooses only one soldier he will definitely die. (I'm wondering if American generals are even allowed to order someone to sure death, when it is not in incredibly dire circumstances.)

If he chooses two soldiers, there is a 60% chance that they will both die. Otherwise they both live.

If he chooses ten soldiers, there is a 20% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he chooses 100 soldiers, there is a 3% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he doesn't do the mission, seven random soldiers will die.

These are his only choices. The question of course is what should he do. The EV answer is of course to pick one soldier. But some would object to the certainty of death. To them I ask if you would pick the one soldier if his chances of dying was 98%. Another reason to not use pure EV is that you consider deaths to not be bad in a linear way. 100 deaths isn't ten times as bad as ten deaths. If so you would pick the 100 soldiers. But is it OK for a General to think that way? (I'm assuming that he is NOT considering the morale of his men which could translate into lives saved down the road if he chose the path that was least likely to result in a fatality.)

[/ QUOTE ]

we know that the last option of seven random sodiers dying is unreasonable because we can kill one sodier and get the mission done or kill 7 and not get anything done

i would pick either 10 or 100 because by just picking one you dooming him to death
probably 100 because i would feel that if i killed 10 i would be just as guilty as killing 100 and with 100 you dramatically reduce the chances of killing some one

[chezlaw]

He should send himself

chez

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
But is it OK for a General to think that way?

[/ QUOTE ]

I submit the following:

1. The general is a professional. his primary concerns are therefore the legal framework and the code of professional conduct to which he adheres. This generally includes a duty of care to his soldiers, and to his army/country.
If he is legally allowed to send a single soldier on a suicide mission then he is clearly protecting the future fighting integrity of his unit, by reducing the chance of significant numerical loss (ignoring morale). Other relevant questions to make the appropriate utility calculation would involve finding out weather losing 100 men is significant in terms of the future military efficacity of the forces in his control. For the general, viewing the incident in isolation is not a reasonable option. He needs to win the war not just the battle (and the war never really ends.)

2. The ethical position for a utilitarian ethicist rather than a general is more complex, and you have not provided enough information as to the nature of the deaths, its impact on the soldiers families etc. Taking such information into account you could then apply some sort of felicific calculus.

What would I do? Utilitarian ethics are rather dangerous when used in a political or social context - obvious examples of negative application should spring to mind.
For a general utilitarian consideration are fine, because he works primarily within a well established framework.

[m1illion]

[ QUOTE ]
This one isn't too farfetched.

An American General needs to pick some soldiers randomly to accomplish a mission. The mission will definitely be accomplished regardless of the number he chooses. But if he chooses only one soldier he will definitely die. (I'm wondering if American generals are even allowed to order someone to sure death, when it is not in incredibly dire circumstances.)

If he chooses two soldiers, there is a 60% chance that they will both die. Otherwise they both live.

If he chooses ten soldiers, there is a 20% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he chooses 100 soldiers, there is a 3% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he doesn't do the mission, seven random soldiers will die.

These are his only choices. The question of course is what should he do. The EV answer is of course to pick one soldier. But some would object to the certainty of death. To them I ask if you would pick the one soldier if his chances of dying was 98%. Another reason to not use pure EV is that you consider deaths to not be bad in a linear way. 100 deaths isn't ten times as bad as ten deaths. If so you would pick the 100 soldiers. But is it OK for a General to think that way? (I'm assuming that he is NOT considering the morale of his men which could translate into lives saved down the road if he chose the path that was least likely to result in a fatality.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Send 100.

I hope we don't think this is some deep, soul searching, philosophical question.

[ QUOTE ]
This one isn't too farfetched.

An American General needs to pick some soldiers randomly to accomplish a mission. The mission will definitely be accomplished regardless of the number he chooses. But if he chooses only one soldier he will definitely die. (I'm wondering if American generals are even allowed to order someone to sure death, when it is not in incredibly dire circumstances.)

If he chooses two soldiers, there is a 60% chance that they will both die. Otherwise they both live.

If he chooses ten soldiers, there is a 20% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he chooses 100 soldiers, there is a 3% chance they will all die. Otherwise they will all live.

If he doesn't do the mission, seven random soldiers will die.

These are his only choices. The question of course is what should he do. The EV answer is of course to pick one soldier. But some would object to the certainty of death. To them I ask if you would pick the one soldier if his chances of dying was 98%. Another reason to not use pure EV is that you consider deaths to not be bad in a linear way. 100 deaths isn't ten times as bad as ten deaths. If so you would pick the 100 soldiers. But is it OK for a General to think that way? (I'm assuming that he is NOT considering the morale of his men which could translate into lives saved down the road if he chose the path that was least likely to result in a fatality.)

[/ QUOTE ]

If the soldiers consent, then he can do whatever pleases him. The more interesting question is if an army for other purposes than self-defense is justified.

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html

[FlFishOn]

A real CO that knew exactly where he stood EV-wise would have one soldier do the mission. No doubt of it.

He call a formation and asks for a volunteer for an extremely dangerous mission of vital importance. Someone will step forward.

[David Sklansky]

"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?

[m1illion]

[ 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 ]


until it no longer was the best option

[David Sklansky]

Even Pair The Board would not have the temerity to give an answer like that.