Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25

# Gambling with Lives

 Posts: 203 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/14/2014 7:01:37 PMPosted: 4 years agoHere is the scenario, someone has told you that if you kill an innocent person, he will flip a coin to determine whether or not to kill 2 innocents. If you do not act, he will not flip a coin, and simply kill the 2 innocents.So,OPTION AKill an innocent to ensure 50/50 probability for the other 2. There is a 50% chance that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 1 will die.OPTION BSpare the innocent, ensure the deaths of the 2. There is a 0% that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 2 will die.NOTE:The coin flip will account for the fate of both of the other innocents.Guess what I used to type this.. Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
 Posts: 14,720 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2014 11:07:10 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 5/14/2014 7:01:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:Here is the scenario, someone has told you that if you kill an innocent person, he will flip a coin to determine whether or not to kill 2 innocents. If you do not act, he will not flip a coin, and simply kill the 2 innocents.So,OPTION AKill an innocent to ensure 50/50 probability for the other 2. There is a 50% chance that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 1 will die.OPTION BSpare the innocent, ensure the deaths of the 2. There is a 0% that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 2 will die.NOTE:The coin flip will account for the fate of both of the other innocents.If he has a coin on him, then he would be holding that.I don't choose options i don't like.Flaws:- how do you know he can kill the innocent people?- how are you going to kill the innocent person?I'd attack the guy himself. And if I die trying, then he'd have killed one innocent person. And the other two can hang up against him, while I be the distraction.Solonkr~ I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not, I care about how to solve problems, which is what everyone else should also care about. Ken~ In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it. Deep down, we're all dumbassses who act like shittheads Me~ "BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL" SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2014 11:37:55 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 5/14/2014 7:01:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:Here is the scenario, someone has told you that if you kill an innocent person, he will flip a coin to determine whether or not to kill 2 innocents. If you do not act, he will not flip a coin, and simply kill the 2 innocents.So,OPTION AKill an innocent to ensure 50/50 probability for the other 2. There is a 50% chance that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 1 will die.OPTION BSpare the innocent, ensure the deaths of the 2. There is a 0% that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 2 will die.NOTE:The coin flip will account for the fate of both of the other innocents.Tell him no so he kills 2 innocents. The blood is not on my hands. But I certainly would try to detain or kill him because that is one life and not the 2 in jeopardy.
 Posts: 400 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/17/2014 1:05:09 AMPosted: 4 years agoAt 5/14/2014 7:01:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:Here is the scenario, someone has told you that if you kill an innocent person, he will flip a coin to determine whether or not to kill 2 innocents. If you do not act, he will not flip a coin, and simply kill the 2 innocents.So,OPTION AKill an innocent to ensure 50/50 probability for the other 2. There is a 50% chance that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 1 will die.OPTION BSpare the innocent, ensure the deaths of the 2. There is a 0% that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 2 will die.NOTE:The coin flip will account for the fate of both of the other innocents.Probabilistically, 2 die regardless.So why would I put blood on my hands?
 Posts: 5,316 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/17/2014 4:26:11 AMPosted: 4 years agoAt 5/16/2014 11:37:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:Suppose a situation where someone else is, say, strangling to death an individual in an alleyway. If someone walks away, would you say they did the wrong thing? If they used the excuse "the blood was not on my hands", how would you respond?Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP. Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 5,316 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/17/2014 12:46:07 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 5/17/2014 4:43:46 AM, Mhykiel wrote:At 5/17/2014 4:26:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:At 5/16/2014 11:37:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:Suppose a situation where someone else is, say, strangling to death an individual in an alleyway. If someone walks away, would you say they did the wrong thing? If they used the excuse "the blood was not on my hands", how would you respond?As I said I would do what I could to stop the one intent on hurting someone. But your asking me to choose:A: I kill innocent, Killer has chance to Kill 1 result 2 deadB: I Kill innocent, Killer has chance to kill 2 result 3 deadC: Killer kills 2, result 2 dead.If I can stop him in any way and of course call the cops I will. But given those choices Why would I take on participating in a needless murder. Doing so save no more lives than what would be lost anyways, And now I am an accomplice.I think you've overcomplicated the situation. There are three scenarios here:A: You stop the killer, no-one diesB: You kill the killer, one person dies who would be a murderer.C: You die, and the killer murders the innocent, two innocent people die.D: You do nothing, the killer kills one innocent person.Let's now suppose that it is clearly apparent that you can overpower the killer. Say, you have a stun-gun. Moreover, the killer is somewhat sane: if he thinks he will certainly lose (because, say, it is clearly apparent you can overpower the killer) then he will run away. Now the choice becomes, taking these factors into account:A: You stop the killer, no-one diesD: You do nothing, and the killer kills an innocent person.While B and C are still possible, it is only with such unlikelihood that for all practical reasoning we'd discard them as possible (just as we'd discard the possibility that the killer is in fact saving the person's life who he is choking).This is essentially a simplified version of the 'Jim and the Indians' thought experiment. But it goes like this: how do you justify to the victim that you did not want to get involved, because you'd become an accomplice to the outcome? The fact that you can affect the outcome in any way makes you involved already. Indeed, if you call the cops, why are you in this situation not an accomplice? From the sounds of it, to put it frankly, you know it is immoral but you just don't want to be personally involved.Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP. Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 5,316 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/17/2014 12:48:07 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 5/17/2014 4:47:59 AM, Mhykiel wrote:I would say a general application would be to call cops then verbally and loudly intervene but stay far enough away to avoid physical confrontation.Let's take this then. Why may you get verbally involved, but not physically involved? That is, why are you allowed to affect the outcome in this way, but not in another way? More than that, why is it that affecting the outcome, if you are trying to help (and assuming intent matters), is somehow immoral?Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP. Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 13,776 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/17/2014 12:56:02 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 5/17/2014 4:26:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:At 5/16/2014 11:37:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:Suppose a situation where someone else is, say, strangling to death an individual in an alleyway. If someone walks away, would you say they did the wrong thing? If they used the excuse "the blood was not on my hands", how would you respond?There's a difference between the two situations. In the OP, the expected utility is the same for both options, so you would be getting blood on your unnecessarily, while in your example, getting blood on your hands is necessary to prevent a murder.
 Posts: 13,776 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/17/2014 12:56:20 PMPosted: 4 years ago*on your hands
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/17/2014 1:03:20 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 5/14/2014 7:01:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:Here is the scenario, someone has told you that if you kill an innocent person, he will flip a coin to determine whether or not to kill 2 innocents. If you do not act, he will not flip a coin, and simply kill the 2 innocents.So,OPTION AKill an innocent to ensure 50/50 probability for the other 2. There is a 50% chance that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 1 will die.OPTION BSpare the innocent, ensure the deaths of the 2. There is a 0% that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 2 will die.NOTE:The coin flip will account for the fate of both of the other innocents.This is different from the trolley dilemma, because the one flipping the coin has the choice to not kill people. In the trolley dilemma, there are events set into motion devoid of human intervention, but in this specific scenario, it is a human carrying out the dirty deed regardless of the actions of the one under question.So, in this case, the coin-flipper has their own choice to make, and if they choose to harm innocents, so be it.It is also different in that each option has the the average deaths of 2 if the experiment is conducted in perpetuity. You're not really saving lives by sticking to one choice or another, so there is no utilitarian solution to this problem. Better to just keep your hands clean.At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote: If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/17/2014 1:09:15 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 5/17/2014 4:26:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:At 5/16/2014 11:37:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:Suppose a situation where someone else is, say, strangling to death an individual in an alleyway. If someone walks away, would you say they did the wrong thing? If they used the excuse "the blood was not on my hands", how would you respond?Hmmm...I would first point out that there is no utilitarian dilemma here. We don't know the outcome of a certain set of actions.What if by acting, the strangler kills both you and the individual? What if by not acting the strangler only kills the individual? With such a set of choices, the clear choice is to not act.Or, what if by acting, the strangler is killed, while by not acting, the victim is killed? Most people would choose to act, as without given any more information, the strangler is, well, a strangler, and will probably strangle more people needlessly.If you add in chance and probabilities, you can just game it out as you would any other dilemma to reach the appropriate solution.At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote: If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
 Posts: 5,000 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/17/2014 1:21:05 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 5/14/2014 7:01:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:Here is the scenario, someone has told you that if you kill an innocent person, he will flip a coin to determine whether or not to kill 2 innocents. If you do not act, he will not flip a coin, and simply kill the 2 innocents.So,OPTION AKill an innocent to ensure 50/50 probability for the other 2. There is a 50% chance that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 1 will die.OPTION BSpare the innocent, ensure the deaths of the 2. There is a 0% that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 2 will die.NOTE:The coin flip will account for the fate of both of the other innocents.Ensure the death of two, because all moral action will only be associated with the killer, whereas by killing the innocent you are allowing moral action to befall yourself through the death of the innocent.Nolite Timere
 Posts: 5,316 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/17/2014 3:19:18 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 5/17/2014 1:09:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:At 5/17/2014 4:26:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:At 5/16/2014 11:37:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:Suppose a situation where someone else is, say, strangling to death an individual in an alleyway. If someone walks away, would you say they did the wrong thing? If they used the excuse "the blood was not on my hands", how would you respond?Hmmm...I would first point out that there is no utilitarian dilemma here. We don't know the outcome of a certain set of actions.What if by acting, the strangler kills both you and the individual? What if by not acting the strangler only kills the individual? With such a set of choices, the clear choice is to not act.Or, what if by acting, the strangler is killed, while by not acting, the victim is killed? Most people would choose to act, as without given any more information, the strangler is, well, a strangler, and will probably strangle more people needlessly.If you add in chance and probabilities, you can just game it out as you would any other dilemma to reach the appropriate solution.In fairness, I was making a quick thought experiment, and the main question I was raising was my second one - the question of justification, rather than, say, deliberation. I've expanded on this point in another post though, to clarify this :)Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP. Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/17/2014 4:20:05 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 5/17/2014 12:48:07 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:At 5/17/2014 4:47:59 AM, Mhykiel wrote:I would say a general application would be to call cops then verbally and loudly intervene but stay far enough away to avoid physical confrontation.Let's take this then. Why may you get verbally involved, but not physically involved? That is, why are you allowed to affect the outcome in this way, but not in another way? More than that, why is it that affecting the outcome, if you are trying to help (and assuming intent matters), is somehow immoral?Refer to the list of possible out comes. The person being strangled is the life at risk. Calling the cops always had at the most a beneficial affect on saving life and at the least little to no effect.Physically intervention put both the victims life and your life at risk and in most cases had less effect then calling cops.Verbally Intervening after calling the cops means you get at the least the benefits of both calling cops and intervening with little additional risk to life.