Oh, don't be such a tease! :sad:

Can't you tell us now what the point is?.

We'll save Australia - don't want to hurt no kangaroo!

Okay, for example you decide to kill the billion oldest people. Once you’ve made that decision remove it as an option. Eventually you’ll end up making decisions based on prejudices you hold and have generally refused to admit you hold.

Admittedly bery few people are willing to go bery far down this road because they don’t want to face what they are capable of.

If you want a watered down version simply take in this scenario instead:

You’re in a burning a building and can save ONE person. There is a handsome young man, a beautiful young woman, a baby, and a billionaire. Who do you save?

Note: The point is not to answer this in your head. It is not to tell everyone else what your decision is - as I’ve said twice already if anyone told me what their choice is I wouldn’t believe them because the act of making your decision public means you’ve only thought about the problem with the aim of telling others.

I believe I have expressed what you are trying to say. That no ideal (non-biased) standard can be implemented if people are to decide who lives or dies. Isn't that the same idea expressed in any other ethical dilemma that involves (human, since you eliminated the possibility of a fair lottery in this case) decision making.

You explore what you would do or you choose not to. If you take the later you miss the importance of the problem.

You explore what you would do or you choose not to. If you take the later you miss the importance of the problem. — I like sushi

But, let me present the dilemma to you in standard form.

1. You have a choice.
2. Your bias influences your choice.
3. You can choose to act on your biases or recuse yourself.
4. In a perfect world or with perfect knowledge, everyone realizes this and recuse' themselves.
5. Dilemma averted.

As an important point that reinforces 5 is through mandating that point number 4 be self-reinforcing through making sure that those who claim that they have a non-biased view on the matter be eliminated from choice making on the matter. Here I have in mind, RWA's or closet fascists or closet totalitarians if we are all liberalist or lovers of democracy.

Averted? You don’t “act” in a hypothetical you think as if you act by taking the problem on at face value.

Looks more like you’re avoiding the problem rather than facing it.

Looks more like you’re avoiding the problem rather than facing it. — I like sushi

No, I am recusing myself, as I have noted. Anyone who claims to have a solution to your problem is the problem.

You recuse yourself and the human race ceases to exist. Good job ;)

You recuse yourself and the human race ceases to exist. Good job ;) — I like sushi

Was that the alternative? Because if you want to game theorize this, you cannot have a sane person making such a choice....

The point is not to answer this in your head. It is not to... — I like sushi

OK, so that's what the point is not. I thought you were going to tell us what the point is.

I’m asking people to put themselves in a position where they have to face AND act on their prejudices. If you cannot take the question seriously then you’ll never reveal the prejudices you carry around with you ... and I don’t blame anyone who doesn’t want to look and it may be better for some not to look? That is another question, but I would say in general it is better to look than not and understand what potential mistakes you could make and to see how you play the scenario out over and over as you amend the rules by disallowing your previous answer.

It’s a bottomless pit and we’ll all hit a limit at some point which is interesting in and of itself I find.

People face situations every day where they encounter their prejudices and can choose to act on them or not. I can't see that conjuring up an impossible thought experiment helps shine any light on that, particularly as most people would refuse to kill anybody.

It would make more sense to ask who somebody would save, not who they would kill. Those decisions do come up in real life, in health policy, as has already been pointed out.

What? Are you saying people would prefer EVERYONE to die? And exactly how is picking who you want to survive better than picking who you’d want to die? That is EXACTLY the point! Don’t you see??

Anyway, I’ll post another thread about alternative Trolley Problem now.

Well the choice will become more and more uncomfortable as you remove the answers people give, but I still do not understand how it will necessarily lead to revelations about secret or hidden prejudices. If one is making practical choices about who is in the 1 billion and then as you suggest those inclusions are taken away 1 by 1, your thought is that they will then have to start making choices based on prejudices and thereby reveal that they do in fact have prejudices but I do not think that is the only possibility. It is possible that a person could have no prejudices and thus would only have arbitrary options at that point, or base the decision off of a practical albeit emotional consideration such as grouping people into categories such as “people I am likely to get along with” and “people I am not likely to get along with”. This might have some overlap with catagories that might otherwise be the focus of prejudice, such as a different racial or religious group, but it wouldnt in fact be based on prejudice against that group but rather the first two groups “people Im likely to get along with” and “people I am not likely to get along with” which as I said can be a practical consideration.
So I think that from your perspective the person might run out of practical options but in actuality they can keep going for as long as is needed.

It is possible that a person could have no prejudices — DingoJones

No it’s not. Those that think this will quickly dismiss the scenario as facile.

HEY SUSHI! SOMEBODY'S DROWNING IN THE ALTERNATIVE TROLLEY THREAD. GET OVER THERE AND SAVE THEM!

QUICK!

You pass three bums begging on the street. One is a shabby but cute white guy; one is a drunk black guy; one is a down and out white hooker. Which one is going to get the extra dollar you have in your pocket?

Not answering. My question was about the process you go through because I wouldn’t believe what you said publicly (this is the forth time I’ve stated this). I have been through such scenarios in my head and gone to some very dark places by adjusting and tweaking them once I arrived at a difficult choice. Have you? If so would you like to comment ln the kind of thoughts that ran through your head?

\

have been through such scenarios in my head and gone to some very dark places by adjusting and tweaking them once I arrived at a difficult choice. — I like sushi

If I were you, I'd stay out of very dark places.

would you like to comment ln the kind of thoughts that ran through your head? — I like sushi

Not on the subject of hobgoblins that I could, would, did, or did not conger up in my mind.

I shall not further annoy you about this thread. Or the alternative trolley thread either, unless there are interesting developments.

Yeah, so everyone is biased and fickle. Therefore, what?

What? Are you saying people would prefer EVERYONE to die? And exactly how is picking who you want to survive better than picking who you’d want to die? That is EXACTLY the point! Don’t you see?? — I like sushi

Yes. I think most people would conclude that it is morally preferable to not kill one billion innocent people. Most people see killing a person as far worse than not saving one. How else can one explain the low rates of donation to life-saving charities like Oxfam?

If you want to argue that not saving a life is the moral equivalent of actively killing somebody, that would be an interesting thread. Although tradition and popular feelings both imply an enormous gulf between the two, there are plenty of philosophers that argue that the gulf is wider than is justifiable. But choose a more likely scenario than this sci-fi one. There are plenty of examples in everyday life. Peter Singer's pond example comes to mind.

That is not the scenario. We’re talking about the entire human race not simply one life over another.

If you prefer to approach the problem from a “who shoudl we save?” rather than a “Who should we kill?” proposition then why is this? I would suspect it is a more psychologically comfortable position to take, but is it more or less inhumane?

We know that psychologically if we physically have a hand in something like killing people tend to shy away from it where pulling a lever or pressing a button is distanced enough for people to weigh up the situation in a more abstract manner. The hypothetical is an abstract too and I’m asking people to apply themselves to it as a non-abstract problem.

We’re talking about the entire human race not simply one life over another. — I like sushi

I don't see that it makes any sense to talk about the entire human race, since there is no remotely likely scenario in which any of us would have to make that decision. It's not ethics, but fantasy.

If you prefer to approach the problem from a “who should we save?” rather than a “Who should we kill?” proposition then why is this?

Because both are loaded questions containing a presupposition. But the presupposition in the first - that we would kill an innocent person - is false for most people, whereas the presupposition in the second - that we would try to save somebody - is not.

I don't see that it makes any sense to talk about the entire human race, since there is no remotely likely scenario in which any of us would have to make that decision. It's not ethics, but fantasy. — andrewk

I’m used to this reply too. The issue is it’s a hypothetical and it should be treated as such. If you think hypotheticals serve no purpose fair enough, I hope once I post my third and final post on the matter my position will be compelling enough.

Hypotheticals don’t necessarily have to be realistic. I’m interested in the dynamic of “would,” “should,” and “want” expressed both internally and externally. We adjust our responses by the setting we’re in and if we’re on a philosophy forum we act liek we’re on a philosophy forum (whatever they may mean for each of us).

If you look at the burning building scenario this may be more easily accessible for some. You will no doubt be repulsed by having to make a choice because you automatically feel yourself being pulled in this or that direction. We’re all capable of committing the most horrific acts.

But the presupposition in the first - that we would kill an innocent person - is false for most people, whereas the presupposition in the second - that we would try to save somebody - is not.

I see where you’re coming from. You did originally state something along the lines of “why not chose the people who will live instead of those who’ll die.” That is no different it is likely to make you feel a little better about your choice if you frame the question as saving 6 billlion people rather than condemning 1 billion people to death.

This is the scenario:

The human race will die unless a billion people are killed tomorrow. You are the world leader and have to decide who dies.

You are NOT allowed to use any form of lottery system. — I like sushi

Easy peasy lemon squeezy, I’d simply make a global announcement of the situation and suggest, to anyone who wants to live past tomorrow, that they kill as many people as they can the next day.

Unfortunately, if it worked the world would be populated by sociopaths. :sad:

^ The problem is, you are forcing the situation in a way to exclude any option of acting other than a prejudicial one. But -in actuality- you always have the option of choosing arbitrarily or without prejudice when in a position of choice.

Secondly I agree [and I think few wouldn't] that we're all capable of committing horrific acts -if that's what you're trying to show- milgram experiment has done this. There is a marked difference between reluctantly, and begrudgingly doing horrid acts in a case of forced choice for some 'noble good' -as in this scenario- and doing it on basis of heinous intentions for no reasonably positive good or for a reason that unnecessarily and carelessly disregards human value. Whatever reason you give for something like taking life, it better be a forced situation with zero alternative and the reason for the choice better be something ethically vetted by more than one person of diverse background and which respects human value.

Then your family would be murdered, you cool with that?

That’s another dodge. The choice is yours not some group of random people.