Abstract moral dilemma #388

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by James R, Oct 3, 2010.

?

Read the opening post and respond

  1. Plan A.

    6 vote(s)
    27.3%
  2. Plan B.

    13 vote(s)
    59.1%
  3. Resign from position of responsibility immediately because unable to decide.

    1 vote(s)
    4.5%
  4. Arghhh! I hate these artificial moral dilemmas. Get thee away from me Satan.

    1 vote(s)
    4.5%
  5. Flip a coin.

    1 vote(s)
    4.5%
  6. Postpone decision indefinitely until I explain my reasoning (see thread)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. Just show me what other people said.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    1000 people are trapped, in danger of imminent death.

    Two rescue plans are put forward:

    Plan A: Guaranteed successful rescue of 250 people, but 750 will certainly die.
    Plan B: 25% chance of successful rescue of all 1000 people, but if something goes wrong all 1000 will surely die.

    As Emergency Controller, you are asked which plan you wish to implement.

    Vote! And explain!

    Other questions:

    * Would it make any difference if it was 10 people instead of 1000, with 2.5 people saved in plan A?
    * Would it make a difference if you knew who the people were?
    * Could your real-world response be different to your reasoned, mathematical response? If so, why?
    * What other facts would you want to know about any real-world example like this before you made the decision?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I'm afraid I would probably go for plan A, because a 25% chance of success is just a bit too low for me. No doubt the moral thing to do would be plan B, but ehh..

    No.

    I would probably be more likely to go with 'the moral thing to do' to avoid criticism by people I know afterwards.
    Come to think of it, the best thing to do in this case would be to leave the decision to someone else.

    See above.

    I would want to know where the number of 250 people came from in plan A.
    I would want to know what the odds in plan B were based on.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Its all or nothing for me.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    It seems odd that only two ideas were brought up. That seems to be rediculous for there should be many ways to help out the people other than those two only. I'd suggest that they would seek more ideas to be better than those that are already known. I had to once try to save over 1000 people that were being held captive and would all die no matter what anyone did. I came up with the best solution that could help the most people without firing a shot. 680 people lived but over 300 died but all would have died if an all out attack was made upon the terrorists because they would have detontated their bombs they had planted everywhere in the building where the people were being held.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2010
  8. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    25% of 1000 is 250.
    Plan A guarantees 250.

    Plan B has a 25% chance of rescuing 100%, but a 75% chance of rescuing 0%.

    A 25% chance gives us 250 that are guaranteed with plan A whereas B gives us a 75% chance they will die.

    I voted A.

    This vote is based entirely on numbers and no morality was involved.

    A moral argument would require that one remembers that all those that die are everything to someone.
    And any chance, even a 10% to save someones father or baby or wife- is plenty enough.
    Logic dictates that the assurance of rescue outweighs those chances.

    There is no answer, just the choice. One that that decision maker must be willing to live with after.
     
  9. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    I quit, I cannot work with such incompetent people.
     
  10. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    LOL!

    Hmm...If I were responsible I'd pick plan A, but if I were one of the 1000 I'd surely pick plan B. I wouldn't want to save myself but let 750 die.
     
  11. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I wouldn't want to give myself (and all the others) a survival chance of just 25%.
    Ok, it evens out because plan B also offers a 25% survival rate. But at least with plan A you have assurance that some will be saved.
    I think the moral decision would be to go with plan B though since that one offers the chance that everyone will be saved.
     
  12. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    hmm..depends if they are lawyers and politicians. i would go for the 25% chance..
     
  13. domesticated om Stickler for details Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,277
    I voted for plan B. 25% of success
     
  14. Gremmie "Happiness is a warm gun" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,593
    I would have to go with plan B... All or none.

    Plan A sounds good, because you are sure of 250 surviving. But, at the same time, you are knowingly condemning 750 to a sure death.
     
  15. Kat9Lives Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    394
    i voted B.

    i would take my chances and attempt saving all..
     
  16. Gypsi Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    98
    I voted for plan B because everyone deserves to have an equal chance. Plus, this brings mass hope and perhaps greater cooperation, which makes it more likely that the 25% probability of everyone being saved will be realized.

    With plan A, who and on what basis is going to pick the lucky 250, and wouldn't there be chaos in the scramble to get picked, or eliminate those who've been picked to take their place? A counter-productive murderous free-for-all?
     
  17. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    This is true.
    Plan A is much more open to public and political questioning.

    Not that I'd change my vote.
     
  18. Gremmie "Happiness is a warm gun" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,593
    Choosing plan A, you have 750 people not liking your vote very much.

    Majority ( MOB ) rules.

    Change your vote.:bugeye:
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Wouldn't it be better to guarantee that at least some of the people are saved, rather than risking the death of everybody?
     
  20. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    No, not changing it.

    Popularity of the vote, to me, is irrelevant. By the OP, I must assume that I was given that responsibility.
    I voted based on that premise and if we hypothesize that as a real world event, the deed would be done.

    Which to me is the essence of it. People will live or die by a great many factors and circumstances totally out of my control. That in itself is as much a part of living as death is. Knowing that our mortality is not just limited- but that the extent of it is always unknown.

    When life and death is on the line, one must make a firm decision and stand by it. See it through. In the end, the result is something you will have to live with no matter how it turns out.
    Imagine living with it if you changed your mind halfway through...:bugeye:


    Think on this: One of the 250 people are rescued. Within minutes of getting out of peril, he goes into cardiac arrest.
    Or he gets hit by a bus and becomes a bug on the windshield.

    Daily, we are taking our chances. Granted, daily, those chances are much more favorable than any 25%.
    But they are the chances we play nonetheless.
    Throwing the illusion of control in there-- the illusion of certainty; It helps people cope. It's not for who lives or who dies- it's for those left alive after that must carry the burden.

    Plan A leaves 250 "Survivors" and 750 "Heros."
    Plan B leaves either 1,000 rescued or 1,000 dead.

    It helps to know how many funerals to plan. It helps to feel like you have some say in how many... or how few... funerals to plan.
     
  21. Gremmie "Happiness is a warm gun" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,593
    I respect your choice Neverfly...

    And I hate to nit-pic... But why do you call the 750 that will certainly die heros?

    I would understand if they volunteered to die, so that another could live.

    Otherwise, I would just see the 750 as victims or casualties.
     
  22. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I'm sure the .5 person would have a legitimate complaint to file.

    For me, not ordinarily. This is a part of life and all the people I know suffer the same capacity for finding themselves in danger.
    There is only a very small handful, if at least two people, maybe three, on this planet that mean enough to me that I would lose all sense of logic or reason. To where my emotions out-rule reasoning.
    One of them is my son.
    And were my son in such peril, I would stop at nothing to ensure his safety. I will not sit here and type a load of shit...
    I would die for him.
    I would forsake others lives for him. How many... I prefer not to guess. I do not know. I don't WANT to know.
    But I know that for him- I would be a Monster.
    Having experienced quite a few real world life and death situations, I can say that it is unlikely that I would vote any differently in a real world application. I have done so with fewer at stake. I know that in real world situations, factors can significantly change in a moments notice.


    ETA:
    Some might say that they died that others might live. It's not the designation that I personally might give them. Rather, the one society is likely to give them.

    It would help the families of those that died cope with the loss easier.
     
  23. Gremmie "Happiness is a warm gun" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,593

    Well James...

    Of course it would be great to know that 250 would be saved.

    But who would be choosing who lived, and who died?. I wouldn't want that responsibility.

    Who's to say who deserves to live, and who to die.. I couldn't play "God"
     

Share This Page