What's Your Measure Of Evil?

[David Sklansky]

My jury posts and PTB's replies made me think about this question. Similar to others but more precise.

You are a general who must make some decisions to save the world. Putting some men in harm's way. No volunteers can be asked for. No votes from your men either. Your last mission can be accomplished in three different ways:

1. You can send ten men who will all definitely die. (You can't pick them at random. The mission will fail if you do.)

2. You can send 50 men. Eleven will die for sure but you don't which ones.

3. You can send 100 men. There is a fifty fifty chance that exactly 24 will die. Otherwise they all live.

No more missions coming up. Which do you choose?

[FortunaMaximus]

1.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
My jury posts and PTB's replies made me think about this question. Similar to others but more precise.

You are a general who must make some decisions to save the world. Putting some men in harm's way. No volunteers can be asked for. Your last mission can be accomplished in three different ways:

1. You can send ten men who will all definitely die.

2. You can send 50 men. Eleven will die for sure but you don't which ones.

3. You can send 100 men. There is a fifty fifty chance that exactly 24 will die. Otherwise they all live.

No more missions coming up. Which do you choose?


[/ QUOTE ]

Number one seems logical, but since the expected death rate is pretty close in all scenarios, then I would give my men the choice of which they would prefer. I'd put it up for a vote, explaining that the mission will save the world.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
My jury posts and PTB's replies made me think about this question. Similar to others but more precise.

You are a general who must make some decisions to save the world. Putting some men in harm's way. No volunteers can be asked for. Your last mission can be accomplished in three different ways:

1. You can send ten men who will all definitely die.

2. You can send 50 men. Eleven will die for sure but you don't which ones.

3. You can send 100 men. There is a fifty fifty chance that exactly 24 will die. Otherwise they all live.

No more missions coming up. Which do you choose?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's saving the world none of those factors come into consideration, the mission comes before any wellbeing of the men.

Just a nitpick.

If they all will equally succeed, I think
a) if you have a ww2 russian style army
b) standard US army
c) the Alexander the great heroic army or maybe US special forces types.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]

Number one seems logical, but since the expected death rate is pretty close in all scenarios, then I would give my men the choice of which they would prefer. I'd put it up for a vote, explaining that the mission will save the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

you've been demoted to garbage scow captain.

[remi983]

Assemble 100 men in the room and randomly select 10 of them to pursue the mission. This way less people will die and the general doesn't have to face the difficult decision of specificaly choosing troops for a suicide mission.

[David Sklansky]

That's what chezlaw would say too. Even though I pretty obviously wasn't allowing that answer.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
This way less people will die and the general doesn't have to face the difficult decision of specificaly choosing troops for a suicide mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

dude, generals live for moments like this.

[remi983]

If that answer is dissallowed, 3 is the way to go. Especially if the men will have the opportunity to skew the odds of survival in their favor; ie better trainning, weapons, mental sharpness, etc.

[flipdeadshot22]

I would assume just going with the option that minimizes the casualties, which in this case would be option 3.

1) 100%
2) 22%
3) .50(100) + .50(76) = 88 survive => 12% casualties

Or am i missing the point here?

[remi983]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This way less people will die and the general doesn't have to face the difficult decision of specificaly choosing troops for a suicide mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

dude, generals live for moments like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

They live for moments like this if they have to make a tough decision. If the decision is not absolutely neccessary, then it is not what you are calling a, 'moment like this' (bc there is a practical solution that can be utilized)

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I would assume just going with the option that minimizes the casualties, which in this case would be option 3.

1) 100%
2) 22%
3) .50(100) + .50(76) = 88 survive => 12% casualty rate

Or am i missing the point here?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think hes going for
10 die
11 die
12 die (gamble 24 or 0)

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
That's what chezlaw would say too. Even though I pretty obviously wasn't allowing that answer.



[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, well it’s pretty easy then. You lie to your men, explaining that it is a very dangerous mission ( but not telling them that they will all die ), then you explain the gravity of the mission. But you also tell them that you are not interested in volunteers this time ( another lie, but make this one clever ). So you draw lots, and send them on their way.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
They live for moments like this if they have to make a tough decision. If the decision is not absolutely neccessary, then it is not what you are calling a, 'moment like this' (bc there is a practical solution that can be utilized)

[/ QUOTE ]

No i think generals look for situations / create situtations where they can make decisions. if they handed off decisons they would be colonels.

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would assume just going with the option that minimizes the casualties, which in this case would be option 3.

1) 100%
2) 22%
3) .50(100) + .50(76) = 88 survive => 12% casualty rate

Or am i missing the point here?

[/ QUOTE ]

i think hes going for
10 die
11 die
12 die (gamble 24 or 0)

[/ QUOTE ]

okay, i'd still go with 3 then

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, well it’s pretty easy then. You lie to your men, explaining that it is a very dangerous mission ( but not telling them that they will all die ), then you explain the gravity of the mission. But you also tell them that you are not interested in volunteers this time ( another lie, but make this one clever ). So you draw lots, and send them on their way.

[/ QUOTE ]

under my a) ww2 russian scenario I(general) would make it a punishment detail, assuming of course that all 3 scenarios would get the job done.

[remi983]

No i think generals look for situations / create situtations where they can make decisions. if they handed off decisons they would be colonels.

[/ QUOTE ]

point taken

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, well it’s pretty easy then. You lie to your men, explaining that it is a very dangerous mission ( but not telling them that they will all die ), then you explain the gravity of the mission. But you also tell them that you are not interested in volunteers this time ( another lie, but make this one clever ). So you draw lots, and send them on their way.


[/ QUOTE ]
under my a) ww2 russian scenario I(general) would make it a punishment detail, assuming of course that all 3 scenarios would get the job done.


[/ QUOTE ]

My scenario erased any morality on your part. If your morality dictated that a specific 10 persons were certainly worse people to society for whatever reason than every one else, then that is your decision. It is moral if most rational people would agree with your view. Otherwise, just pick my way of doing it.

[Taraz]

I think I would choose 3. I think it's worth risking two extra hypothetical lives if there is a 50/50 chance that nobody dies.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
My scenario erased any morality on your part. If your morality dictated that a specific 10 persons were certainly worse people to society for whatever reason than every one else, then that is your decision. It is moral if most rational people would agree with your view. Otherwise, just pick my way of doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

well the russians did have punishment suicide squads in ww2, that's part of the reason I phrased my answer the way I did. my original answer.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I would choose 3. I think it's worth risking two extra hypothetical lives if there is a 50/50 chance that nobody dies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not bad.

But when you realize that the general makes the decision to send those people into the field, he should already count the losses. Otherwise his logic is fuzzy. Think Schrodinger's Cat.

[PairTheBoard]

We have an ethos against Kamakazi missions in my culture. I think the reason is we see them as Evil. So as a measure of Evil, I would rule out #1. It is simply not an acceptable mission under our ethos against Kamakazi.

#2 sounds like it's going to be a known blood bath with expected casualties slightly higher than the 10 man kamakazi mission. But at least every man has a fighting chance. If the importance of the mission justified the expected casualities it would therefore be an acceptable mission.

#3 sounds like it is applying enough force to give a good chance of a clean mission but with an equal danger of a FUBAR quagmire where high casualities would be expected. It also spends more resources to carry it out. The quagmire effect is not appealing. The sufficient force theory is not really being satisfied. And I don't have high confidence the force can succeed cleanly.

Looks like #2 to me. Get in get out, take our losses if the mission is that important.

PairTheBoard

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
We have an ethos against Kamakazi missions in my culture. I think the reason is we see them as Evil. So as a measure of Evil, I would rule out #1. It is simply not an acceptable mission under our ethos against Kamakazi

[/ QUOTE ]


Japanese kamakazi missions were honorable to their culture and seen as an act of love to their country, and their emperor and indeed their way of life. To describe this honorable deed as evil is just plain wrong, and even maybe racist.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
We have an ethos against Kamakazi missions in my culture. I think the reason is we see them as Evil. So as a measure of Evil, I would rule out #1. It is simply not an acceptable mission under our ethos against Kamakazi




Japanese kamakazi missions were honorable to their culture and seen as an act of love to their country, and their emperor and indeed their way of life. To describe this honorable deed as evil is just plain wrong, and even maybe racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you're pointing out that he's not japanese?

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have an ethos against Kamakazi missions in my culture. I think the reason is we see them as Evil. So as a measure of Evil, I would rule out #1. It is simply not an acceptable mission under our ethos against Kamakazi

[/ QUOTE ]


Japanese kamakazi missions were honorable to their culture and seen as an act of love to their country, and their emperor and indeed their way of life. To describe this honorable deed as evil is just plain wrong, and even maybe racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the need to be more PC in these hypersensitive times, but implying that PTB's disdain for kamakaze-like behavior stems from racism seems a little over the top. I guess it really comes down to cultural relativism as far as the answer we choose; which doesnt surprise me, since morality isnt black and white.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have an ethos against Kamakazi missions in my culture. I think the reason is we see them as Evil. So as a measure of Evil, I would rule out #1. It is simply not an acceptable mission under our ethos against Kamakazi

[/ QUOTE ]


Japanese kamakazi missions were honorable to their culture and seen as an act of love to their country, and their emperor and indeed their way of life. To describe this honorable deed as evil is just plain wrong, and even maybe racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

No racism intended. I can't help what other cultures might think about things. In my culture we find it awfully abhorent. We also don't think much of suicide bombers. Sorry if that offends. The topic is "Measure of Evil". I doubt you're going to be able to get into that without some subjective stuff coming out.

PairTheBoard

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the need to be more PC in these hypersensitive times, but implying that PTB's disdain for kamakaze-like behavior stems from racism seems a little over the top. I guess it really comes down to cultural relativism as far as the answer we choose; which doesnt surprise me, since morality isnt black and white.



[/ QUOTE ] It wasn’t his disdain for kamikaze like behavior that caused my response. It was his description of it as “evil” that elicited my response. Nothing more or less. I didn’t mean to be PC. Disdain is one thing. Evil denotes a descriptive morality that I don't agree with.

[tshort]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like #2 to me. Get in get out, take our losses if the mission is that important.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

How is sending 50 men in knowing 11 of them will die not a kamikaze mission?

Is there really a difference just because you don't know which ones are going to die?

[kerowo]

I don't think it matters how many of the men die, we are saving the world, so none of the scenarios themselves are evil.

As far as picking which option how is it not 1? Least amount of resources, least amount of losses, most efficient operation. Assuming it's a large scale war, otherwise why is it going to save the world, then a General's job is to send men to their deaths.

In this example, trying to feel better about the decision leads to pointless deaths. There I just stumbled into what is evil in this situation. Some General getting 2 more people killed so he doesn't feel bad is evil.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
What's Your Measure Of Evil?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your question is great; however, it has nothing to do with evil.

I'm suprised that some have been suckered into that.

-Zeno

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I would choose 3. I think it's worth risking two extra hypothetical lives if there is a 50/50 chance that nobody dies.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my answer. The chance of completing the mission with zero deaths is "worth" the -2 lives EV.

Also, even though I'm not allowed to ask the men, I'm pretty sure they'd choose plan 3 as well, given the opportunity. I'd guess highly trained men would have the confidence to think they could complete the mission with no casualties if that's a reasonable possibility.

However, I don't understand how this question relates at all to a "measure of evil."

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I don't understand how this question relates at all to a "measure of evil."

[/ QUOTE ]
A "measure" is a mathematical object used to describe the size of things. Roughly speaking, it has the property that the measure of a composite entity is the sum of the measures of its parts. Probability is an example of a measure, since the probability of mutually exclusive events is the sum of the probabilities.

PairTheBoard suggested that evil does not add up in this way, so we cannot presume to quantify "how evil" something is with a measure. If you cannot use a measure, then in particular you cannot use a probability measure, and hence you cannot compute EV (for example).

This thread may not have to do with evil. This thread seems to be illustrating that the "value" of a human life cannot be quantified with a measure. Hence, while you can compute the expected number of lives lost, you cannot compute the expected value of those lives.

[Ron Paul]

This hypothetical is deceptive. It justifies these types of decisions, when people often mistakenly convince themselves that they have fewer choices than they actually do. People trick themselves into false dichotomoies; I must either do this or this, and then use this sort of least of N evils calculation.

[BennyMac]

4.

http://www.certifiedrandom.com/images/2006win/kiefer.jpg

[goodgrief]

Considering the stakes, I would choose the mission I thought most likely to succeed. If that makes me evil, so be it. There are a lot more than 24 lives at stake when you are talking about saving the world. In our current crisis, though, the problem is hysterical leaders who merely think their missions will save the world and so send good men to be chewed up for nothing, but that's another debate for another day. A general or commander is obligated to be clear-thinking and to use good information before making his decisions, since any decision he makes will cost some lives, no? But, assuming I've done my homework and the danger is real, I'm going to assign the best team to the mission and go on from there. We are not given enough information to know which team would do the job best, we are only told how many on the team and how many will die -- not necessarily the most relevant facts needed to make a final decision about the mission. Generals already know that people get killed on dangerous missions.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I would choose 3. I think it's worth risking two extra hypothetical lives if there is a 50/50 chance that nobody dies.

[/ QUOTE ]

[NickMPK]

The answer seems to be to be obviously #1. Not only are you killing fewer people on average, but you need a lot fewer volunteers to step forward. Failing getting an appropriate number of volunteers, you can simply choose the people who are the oldest. You have much more control over who lives and who dies in this scenario, and thus much more potential to minimize the effect of the loss.

Edit: Sorry, I misread that no volunteers could be asked for. I still think #1 is clearly best because you can choose who will die based on whatever criteria is most appropriate.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I would choose 3. I think it's worth risking two extra hypothetical lives if there is a 50/50 chance that nobody dies.

[/ QUOTE ]

So... wanna bet on coin flips? Your $12 to my $10? After all, there's a 50/50 chance you don't lose any money. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[AlexM]

1. The title of this thread is horrible.

2. Is it supposed to be implied that in option #1 it's the "10 best" that die, while in option #2 it's 11 at random of the "100 best"?

I probably pick option #1 anyway though.

[Gordon Scott]

I pick 3 because I think that's the one the 100 new in question would pick.

GS

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
4.

http://www.certifiedrandom.com/images/2006win/kiefer.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[samsonite2100]

Wtf does this have to do with evil?

[goodgrief]

A false belief that only evil people can make hard decisions? I've encountered this idea among New Agers, don't expect to see it from the likes of Sklansky though. Really, the whole thread is weird if you ask me but I guess nobody did.


[ QUOTE ]
Wtf does this have to do with evil?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ALawPoker]

I like option 3. But it'd depend on my mood at the time.

I think the 50/50 chance that my conscience can come out 100% clean is worth the difference between killing 10 and killing 12.

[SNOWBALL]

From the perspective of an enlisted man, #1 is best, #2 is 2nd best, and #3 is the worst. From the perspective of a soldier that has already been chosen, 3 is the best, 2 is the 2nd best, and 1 is the worst. I think the general's duty to all of the enlisted men outweighs his duty to the ones in the battlefield. I choose #1.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Wtf does this have to do with evil?

[/ QUOTE ]

ever hear of the lesser of two evils?

[andyfox]

24 would die in option 3, never 12.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
I would assume just going with the option that minimizes the casualties, which in this case would be option 3.

1) 100%
2) 22%
3) .50(100) + .50(76) = 88 survive => 12% casualties

Or am i missing the point here?

[/ QUOTE ]

This only misses the point if you think it's better to have 43% of a million dollars than 100% of a twenty dollar bill.

[jogger08152]

Dunno which option I'd take - probably 1, depending on what you meant by "they can't be chosen at random or the mission will fail" - but I'm absolutely positive I'd call the mission "Operation Moral Dilemma".

[Kimbell175113]

[ QUOTE ]
0 would die in option 3, never 12.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just as likely.

[godBoy]

1.

2 - one too many unnecessary deaths.

3 - I wouldn't gamble peoples lives.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
24 would die in option 3, never 12.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant an average of 12 would die.

I'm just saying that I think it'd be worth it to me to kill 2 people (of equity) just because the times I kill 0 people will be so great. I don't think killing 24 people would bother me twice as much as killing 10 people. So I'd be selfish and effectively kill more people for the 50/50 shot at knowing I killed no one. And this of course would not be the case if this scenario was repeated long enough to reach the "long-term." I'm assuming that I'm only put in this situation once.

This archaic mind of mine makes me do silly things. I should be more of a robot like Sklansky.

[tict0ctoe]

A bold general may be lucky but no General can be lucky unless he is bold.

Napoleon once said 'Those soldiers who are not willing to be a general are not good soldiers'.

With this in mind, as General, we must be bold and send 100 of our finest team working soliders who are prepared to fight with pride, honour and resilience with view to getting lucky and come away unscathed where we can all sing Kum Ba Yah, sip the finest scottish whiskey and cavort with buxom beauties.

In short, option 3.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
This hypothetical is deceptive. It justifies these types of decisions, when people often mistakenly convince themselves that they have fewer choices than they actually do. People trick themselves into false dichotomoies; I must either do this or this, and then use this sort of least of N evils calculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. The hypothetical is innocent of your charges. It was merely a slightly dramatic way of asking about three choices regarding the EV of the number of deaths with varying degrees of certainty.

It turns out that I can prove beyond doubt that the question deserved a straightforward answer without a nitpick.

Pair The Board answered it that way. QED

[tict0ctoe]

David

I've been pondering on this since your last reply. I agree to rule out option one as this condemns man from the get-go.

It seems we are gambling on the lives of 13 men if we choose option 3 when compared to the certainty of 11 deaths in option 2.

Whilst men going to war should be under the knowledge that possible death is part of the job, shouldn't we give them all every fighting chance of survival? Strength in numbers? Also, this is our last ever mission so we need not worry about future resources and could apply all current resources to the task at hand.

If you have time I'd be really interested for you elaborate and show some sort of margin on the difference in options 2 and 3.

[soon2bepro]

Answer is 1.

Ps: David, I don't understand what you see in making these threads and spending time discussing with people who argue with their feelings like PairTheBoard. One would think you had plenty of time in your life to realize that this leads nowhere. What Am I missing?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

We have an ethos against Kamakazi missions in my culture. I think the reason is we see them as Evil. So as a measure of Evil, I would rule out #1. It is simply not an acceptable mission under our ethos against Kamakazi.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Why are medals of honor given to guys who throw themselves on grenades? Why is there a memorial at the alamo that gets thousands of visitors a year? Bravery in the face of certain death by US personal is lauded and honored, by countries fighting against us is vilified and abhorred. Strange coinkidink eh?

[godBoy]

How did you justify the unnecessary death of that 11th man?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This hypothetical is deceptive. It justifies these types of decisions, when people often mistakenly convince themselves that they have fewer choices than they actually do. People trick themselves into false dichotomoies; I must either do this or this, and then use this sort of least of N evils calculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. The hypothetical is innocent of your charges. It was merely a slightly dramatic way of asking about three choices regarding the EV of the number of deaths with varying degrees of certainty.

It turns out that I can prove beyond doubt that the question deserved a straightforward answer without a nitpick.

Pair The Board answered it that way. QED

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly David. If you read my post closely you'll see that I translated the situations into more general categories classified by more general principles where I could make a judgement based on those principles rather than the raw EV settup you gave us.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We have an ethos against Kamakazi missions in my culture. I think the reason is we see them as Evil. So as a measure of Evil, I would rule out #1. It is simply not an acceptable mission under our ethos against Kamakazi.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Why are medals of honor given to guys who throw themselves on grenades? Why is there a memorial at the alamo that gets thousands of visitors a year? Bravery in the face of certain death by US personal is lauded and honored, by countries fighting against us is vilified and abhorred. Strange coinkidink eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken. But we still have an ethos against ordering people or even asking for volunteers for straightforward Kamikazi attacks. It was not "known" that the Alamo was a suicide mission. This is one reason David's scenarios are unreasonable. His conditions require us to imagine perfect mental states which are often unrealistic.

PairTheBoard

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We have an ethos against Kamakazi missions in my culture. I think the reason is we see them as Evil. So as a measure of Evil, I would rule out #1. It is simply not an acceptable mission under our ethos against Kamakazi.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Why are medals of honor given to guys who throw themselves on grenades? Why is there a memorial at the alamo that gets thousands of visitors a year? Bravery in the face of certain death by US personal is lauded and honored, by countries fighting against us is vilified and abhorred. Strange coinkidink eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken. But we still have an ethos against ordering people or even asking for volunteers for straightforward Kamikazi attacks. It was not "known" that the Alamo was a suicide mission. This is one reason David's scenarios are unreasonable. His conditions require us to imagine perfect mental states which are often unrealistic.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]


In general it doesn't seem much different to ask 10 men to fall on a grenade than just one man. But there is a difference, which is that the men who receive posthumous medals of honour for those actions, weren't asked in advance to do it, but instead made the split second decision on their own to sacrifice their life for their comrades.

As PTB has pointed out, #2 is the superior choice, because even though entailing a slightly smaller casualty count, it does allow each man to make the choice of being willing to die to save the world, while at the same time having +EV chance to come out alive, and with less overall casualties than the EV of #3.

One note on situations such as the Alamo though. In many such situations, especially in other cultures such as the Japanese, even greater numbers of men do make the "kamikaze" choice, because they viewed surrender as worse than death. If Jim Bowie and Davy Crockett and the rest had surrendered to Santa Ana, then when someone said "remember the Alamo", they wouldn't have done so as an inspiration to rally the troops to victory over the enemy, but as an example of cowardice in the face of the enemy, despite the near certainty of death that made it the more realistic choice. Especially since even if the Alamo had not been taken, the forces there were way insufficient to actually inflict a defeat on the enemy force other than denying them the fort.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
As PTB has pointed out, #2 is the superior choice, because even though entailing a slightly smaller casualty count, it does allow each man to make the choice of being willing to die to save the world, while at the same time having +EV chance to come out alive, and with less overall casualties than the EV of #3.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that the choice to die for king and country was made by the men when the joined the service in the first place.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that the choice to die for king and country was made by the men when the joined the service in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Marine Corps mantra: "We're not here to die for our country but to make the other son of a bitch die for his". /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that the choice to die for king and country was made by the men when the joined the service in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Marine Corps mantra: "We're not here to die for our country but to make the other son of a bitch die for his". /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
It would upset me to send 10 good men to their death can I send 100 of yours instead?

chez

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


Point taken. But we still have an ethos against ordering people or even asking for volunteers for straightforward Kamikazi attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many people know that Kamikaze attacks were first called for by pilots and squadron leaders and that they were rebuffed by the higher levels of command multiple times? People are very loath to get inside their enemies heads, as the comments after 9/11 clearly showed. Everyone wants to say that those guys were crazy even though their motives were well known.
Its understandable from an emotional standpoint to be afraid of things that threaten you (or should make you feel threatened) and to laud those who make you feel safe, but I don't think that translates into a good and evil ethos at all. People who thought they were saved by the 10 who were sacrificed would honor them. Even failures end up with honors in these situation (Custer is a prime example of that).

[ QUOTE ]
It was not "known" that the Alamo was a suicide mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps not by all, but the 30 something men who reinforced it knew that there was no help coming, and for them it was about as close to a suicide mission as you could come.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Quote:
It seems to me that the choice to die for king and country was made by the men when the joined the service in the first place.



Marine Corps mantra: "We're not here to die for our country but to make the other son of a bitch die for his".


It would upset me to send 10 good men to their death can I send 100 of yours instead?

chez


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I give. Clarify your statement in meaning and purpose. I'll consider my response at that time. I'm not that clever.

chaz

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
My jury posts and PTB's replies made me think about this question. Similar to others but more precise.

You are a general who must make some decisions to save the world. Putting some men in harm's way. No volunteers can be asked for. No votes from your men either. Your last mission can be accomplished in three different ways:

1. You can send ten men who will all definitely die. (You can't pick them at random. The mission will fail if you do.)

2. You can send 50 men. Eleven will die for sure but you don't which ones.

3. You can send 100 men. There is a fifty fifty chance that exactly 24 will die. Otherwise they all live.

No more missions coming up. Which do you choose?

Edited by David Sklansky (06/01/07 04:11 AM)


[/ QUOTE ]

If you want the chest of nothingness then consider the following.

1)If you want the chest you'll have to give me 10 bananas. Clear and concise. I get to pick the bananas otherwise no go and you don't get the chest.--Barter

2)You can give me 50 bananas but in that case you choose the 50 but I get to keep 11 of my choice. You get the chest. Insurance policy.

3)You can send me 100 bananas and I'll flip a coin. Heads I get to keep 24 o my choice and tails I get nothing and you get the chest either way.-- Gamble

You must choose for you desire greatly the chest of nothingness.

If we're in training for a mathematical bent then bananas are better than fear. Most of us could evaluate the situation with bananas both mathematically and emotionally. So what you are saying is that you are instilling fear into your students. The problem is that projecting of fear onto others is indeed not very nice no matter how you cut it. There is no consideration of all that in which human beings care through; courage, love, life,strength, work,etc. The mathematics should stick to bananas and let the big boys do the rest.

This is bringing economic/mathematical thinking into a sphere into which it does not belong. Square pegs into round holes.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Quote:
It seems to me that the choice to die for king and country was made by the men when the joined the service in the first place.



Marine Corps mantra: "We're not here to die for our country but to make the other son of a bitch die for his".


It would upset me to send 10 good men to their death can I send 100 of yours instead?

chez


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I give. Clarify your statement in meaning and purpose. I'll consider my response at that time. I'm not that clever.

chaz

[/ QUOTE ]
Well these scenarios are near enough impossible in real life but if I was the general then at least I'd get some satisfactio from sending men who believed "We're not here to die for our country but to make the other son of a bitch die for his" to their death. Though I'd have to avoid the common mistake of confusing bravado/singing with belief.

Extreme stupidity merits some punishment doesn't it?

chez

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Extreme stupidity merits some punishment doesn't it?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You're dealing in insults and epithets. I gave the real,you can deny it, but they mean it. Better you consider my previous post.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Extreme stupidity merits some punishment doesn't it?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You're dealing in insults and epithets. I gave the real,you can deny it, but they mean it. Better you consider my previous post.

[/ QUOTE ]
and if they mean it they'v been extremely stupid. Its not an insult really, i'm sure they would realise their stupidity.

chez

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
This hypothetical is deceptive. It justifies these types of decisions, when people often mistakenly convince themselves that they have fewer choices than they actually do. People trick themselves into false dichotomoies; I must either do this or this, and then use this sort of least of N evils calculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

I choose not to become someone whose job it is to murder people.

[lucksack]

Of course nr.1. Saving a life (or two) is by far more important to me than my personal gain in not having to choose the people who die.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As PTB has pointed out, #2 is the superior choice, because even though entailing a slightly smaller casualty count, it does allow each man to make the choice of being willing to die to save the world, while at the same time having +EV chance to come out alive, and with less overall casualties than the EV of #3.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that the choice to die for king and country was made by the men when the joined the service in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

The choice was to fight for his country and make the enemy die for his. From a practical standpoint, if our military were one that routinely included kamikazi in their tactics there might be a lot of people who would decide that such a country was not worth fighting for.

In #3 there is also the principle of sending troops into the high likelihood of a quagmire where high casualties would be suffered. I really treated #2 and #3 as realistically equal in EV. I decided against #3 on the basis of an aversion to creating quagmire situations for our troops. I think the guiding principle there is "Sufficient Force". There is also the principle of "Diminishing Returns". Sending excess troops into a situation can sometimes be counterproductive. This might be called the "Ambush" principle. The more troops you send in the worse the result. Some missions are better suited to Small Special Forces.

So, in #3 it looks to me that Sufficent Force is coming into play but is strongly offset by the Ambush principle. It appears to be on the cusp of these two. Without further information, we can't tell which principle would dominate if further forces were applied. Considering the greater downside risk from the Ambush principle in the case we have miscalulated, and with option #2 availaible, I picked #2 as the wiser course of action. In reality, the situation should be analyzed further to determine which of those two principles dominates for it.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My jury posts and PTB's replies made me think about this question. Similar to others but more precise.

You are a general who must make some decisions to save the world. Putting some men in harm's way. No volunteers can be asked for. No votes from your men either. Your last mission can be accomplished in three different ways:

1. You can send ten men who will all definitely die. (You can't pick them at random. The mission will fail if you do.)

2. You can send 50 men. Eleven will die for sure but you don't which ones.

3. You can send 100 men. There is a fifty fifty chance that exactly 24 will die. Otherwise they all live.

No more missions coming up. Which do you choose?

Edited by David Sklansky (06/01/07 04:11 AM)


[/ QUOTE ]

If you want the chest of nothingness then consider the following.

1)If you want the chest you'll have to give me 10 bananas. Clear and concise. I get to pick the bananas otherwise no go and you don't get the chest.--Barter

2)You can give me 50 bananas but in that case you choose the 50 but I get to keep 11 of my choice. You get the chest. Insurance policy.

3)You can send me 100 bananas and I'll flip a coin. Heads I get to keep 24 o my choice and tails I get nothing and you get the chest either way.-- Gamble

You must choose for you desire greatly the chest of nothingness.

If we're in training for a mathematical bent then bananas are better than fear. Most of us could evaluate the situation with bananas both mathematically and emotionally. So what you are saying is that you are instilling fear into your students. The problem is that projecting of fear onto others is indeed not very nice no matter how you cut it. There is no consideration of all that in which human beings care through; courage, love, life,strength, work,etc. The mathematics should stick to bananas and let the big boys do the rest.

This is bringing economic/mathematical thinking into a sphere into which it does not belong. Square pegs into round holes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent post. It looks like carlo actually read my post on the other thread about Sklansky essentially ajoining Yida, Yada, Yippe, Slimslam, Boopboop words from real life onto a pure Mathematical Proability Model. Then forcing us to accept the mathematical validity of statements like, "The Yida must be Yada when the Slimslam Boopboops". The statement could be realistically nonsense but we are forced to agree to it under the dictates of the possibly arbitrarily defined adjoining of the Yida Yadas's to the math model.

PairTheBoard

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:

Quote:
My jury posts and PTB's replies made me think about this question. Similar to others but more precise.

You are a general who must make some decisions to save the world. Putting some men in harm's way. No volunteers can be asked for. No votes from your men either. Your last mission can be accomplished in three different ways:

1. You can send ten men who will all definitely die. (You can't pick them at random. The mission will fail if you do.)

2. You can send 50 men. Eleven will die for sure but you don't which ones.

3. You can send 100 men. There is a fifty fifty chance that exactly 24 will die. Otherwise they all live.

No more missions coming up. Which do you choose?

Edited by David Sklansky (06/01/07 04:11 AM)




If you want the chest of nothingness then consider the following.

1)If you want the chest you'll have to give me 10 bananas. Clear and concise. I get to pick the bananas otherwise no go and you don't get the chest.--Barter

2)You can give me 50 bananas but in that case you choose the 50 but I get to keep 11 of my choice. You get the chest. Insurance policy.

3)You can send me 100 bananas and I'll flip a coin. Heads I get to keep 24 o my choice and tails I get nothing and you get the chest either way.-- Gamble

You must choose for you desire greatly the chest of nothingness.

If we're in training for a mathematical bent then bananas are better than fear. Most of us could evaluate the situation with bananas both mathematically and emotionally. So what you are saying is that you are instilling fear into your students. The problem is that projecting of fear onto others is indeed not very nice no matter how you cut it. There is no consideration of all that in which human beings care through; courage, love, life,strength, work,etc. The mathematics should stick to bananas and let the big boys do the rest.

This is bringing economic/mathematical thinking into a sphere into which it does not belong. Square pegs into round holes.



This is an excellent post. It looks like carlo actually read my post on the other thread about Sklansky essentially ajoining Yida, Yada, Yippe, Slimslam, Boopboop words from real life onto a pure Mathematical Proability Model. Then forcing us to accept the mathematical validity of statements like, "The Yida must be Yada when the Slimslam Boopboops". The statement could be realistically nonsense but we are forced to agree to it under the dictates of the possibly arbitrarily defined adjoining of the Yida Yadas's to the math model.

PairTheBoard













[/ QUOTE ]


/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that the choice to die for king and country was made by the men when the joined the service in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Marine Corps mantra: "We're not here to die for our country but to make the other son of a bitch die for his". /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
It would upset me to send 10 good men to their death can I send 100 of yours instead?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're being a bit of a nit here chez. I think the spirit of the mantra is pretty clear. It's just opposite to the stupidity which you ascribe to it. It is saying that they are not there to recklessly and stupidly risk their lives just to show how brave they are. They are there to defeat the enemy in the best ways possible. Kamikazi has come to have two common meanings. One is the suicide attact. The other is more generally any highly risky, reckless, stupid behavior. The Marines are saying they are not there to be doing the latter.

So that principle does not directly apply to an aversion to suicide missions. But I think it does point to it. I think the fact remains that if our Military routinely included Kamikazi tactics, like designing attack weapons where the operaters are automatically killed when the weapon works, it would affect recruitment. To deny that we have an ethos of aversion to such tactics is to deny reality. As was pointed out by another poster, the Japanese high command had an ethos of aversion to such tactics as well.

Under extreme conditions, we might choose to override that aversion as the Japanese did. That doesn't mean we don't continue to apply our ethos against it when we can.

PairTheBoard

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems to me that the choice to die for king and country was made by the men when the joined the service in the first place.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Marine Corps mantra: "We're not here to die for our country but to make the other son of a bitch die for his".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It would upset me to send 10 good men to their death can I send 100 of yours instead?

chez


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think you're being a bit of a nit here chez. I think the spirit of the mantra is pretty clear. It's just opposite to the stupidity which you ascribe to it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't ascribing stupidity to the mantra even if they believe it.

The stupidity would be ascribing to it and then signing up for any army that would let me be a general. I'm sure they would agree /images/graemlins/wink.gif

chez

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]

In #3 there is also the principle of sending troops into the high likelihood of a quagmire where high casualties would be suffered. I really treated #2 and #3 as realistically equal in EV. I decided against #3 on the basis of an aversion to creating quagmire situations for our troops. I think the guiding principle there is "Sufficient Force". There is also the principle of "Diminishing Returns". Sending excess troops into a situation can sometimes be counterproductive. This might be called the "Ambush" principle. The more troops you send in the worse the result. Some missions are better suited to Small Special Forces.


PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where you are getting quagmire out of #3 or we have different definitions of what it is.

I also think a lot of discusion on this is assuming that the troops know what the outcome of the mission is and have a vote on it. I think neither of these being true is more likely than both of them being true.

Soldiers join the military knowing that they may die for their country which to me means "...it does allow each man to make the choice of being willing to die to save the world" doesn't really apply because the choice was made before the mission was designed.

If you want to argue that the troops are conscripts or that they should be allowed to make that decision again before the mission then we are moving far afield of the original question.

[mindflayer]

When you use military missions as the background for your choice of action, it gives the impression that you can change the outcome of #3 by Trying/fighting harder.

The banana/chest analogy is probably a better one.

[Piers]

The options are close enough that in practise there will always be some external factor that will make my decision for me.

However to avoid being accused of avoiding the question, I guess I would choose 3 as it’s easier to kid myself that I am not really risking anyone’s life. But then I would never apply for a job as a general.

[ QUOTE ]
Re: What's Your Measure Of Evil?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what the title has to do with the post, but I just let my gut decide for me.

[LooseCaller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We have an ethos against Kamakazi missions in my culture. I think the reason is we see them as Evil. So as a measure of Evil, I would rule out #1. It is simply not an acceptable mission under our ethos against Kamakazi.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Why are medals of honor given to guys who throw themselves on grenades? Why is there a memorial at the alamo that gets thousands of visitors a year? Bravery in the face of certain death by US personal is lauded and honored, by countries fighting against us is vilified and abhorred. Strange coinkidink eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken. But we still have an ethos against ordering people or even asking for volunteers for straightforward Kamikazi attacks. It was not "known" that the Alamo was a suicide mission. This is one reason David's scenarios are unreasonable. His conditions require us to imagine perfect mental states which are often unrealistic.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

i realize that this is nitty and i generally refrain from correcting spelling errors, but your repeated misspelling of the word "kamikaze" despite its importance to your argument (and the fact that other posters have written it correctly in this thread)is frustrating. and who the hell is this "we" you are talking about that have an ethos against kamikaze missions? you seem to be arguing that sending in 10 people to die is worse than sending in 20 people, half of whom will die. i realize that it is an idealization of real world events to simplify the probabilities like this, but seriously, your argument has very little weight past the "it makes me feel bad" defense. and please, point out where this doctrine of no suicide missions exists for moments of extreme circumstances (liking a ticking nuclear bomb mission or a meteor heading toward earth). i realize that the usa is opposed to suicide missions in times of war, but the general willingness of the american government to change the rules when it needs to leads me to believe that this doctrine wouldnt hold up in the examples i gave.
the people in the republican debate (and they're stupidly pro-america) seemed to be jumping over each other to support torture in certain circumstances and most of them are pro-death penalty, so its certainly not a "culture of life."

do you honestly believe that, in order to save the world, specifically assigning a group to die is morally distinct from assigning a group twice the size to the same task with a 50% chance of death?

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My jury posts and PTB's replies made me think about this question. Similar to others but more precise.

You are a general who must make some decisions to save the world. Putting some men in harm's way. No volunteers can be asked for. No votes from your men either. Your last mission can be accomplished in three different ways:

1. You can send ten men who will all definitely die. (You can't pick them at random. The mission will fail if you do.)

2. You can send 50 men. Eleven will die for sure but you don't which ones.

3. You can send 100 men. There is a fifty fifty chance that exactly 24 will die. Otherwise they all live.

No more missions coming up. Which do you choose?

Edited by David Sklansky (06/01/07 04:11 AM)


[/ QUOTE ]

If you want the chest of nothingness then consider the following.

1)If you want the chest you'll have to give me 10 bananas. Clear and concise. I get to pick the bananas otherwise no go and you don't get the chest.--Barter

2)You can give me 50 bananas but in that case you choose the 50 but I get to keep 11 of my choice. You get the chest. Insurance policy.

3)You can send me 100 bananas and I'll flip a coin. Heads I get to keep 24 o my choice and tails I get nothing and you get the chest either way.-- Gamble

You must choose for you desire greatly the chest of nothingness.

If we're in training for a mathematical bent then bananas are better than fear. Most of us could evaluate the situation with bananas both mathematically and emotionally. So what you are saying is that you are instilling fear into your students. The problem is that projecting of fear onto others is indeed not very nice no matter how you cut it. There is no consideration of all that in which human beings care through; courage, love, life,strength, work,etc. The mathematics should stick to bananas and let the big boys do the rest.

This is bringing economic/mathematical thinking into a sphere into which it does not belong. Square pegs into round holes.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have a great appreciation for mathematics and the methods of problem solving it provides, but i agree with you. a simple expected value calculation does truly not capture what is going on here.

[ QUOTE ]
Answer is 1.

Ps: David, I don't understand what you see in making these threads and spending time discussing with people who argue with their feelings like PairTheBoard. One would think you had plenty of time in your life to realize that this leads nowhere. What Am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

in this scenario i see no problem with using your feelings to influence your decision; these are lives, not poker chips. i imagine you would change your decision if you had to send your father as one of the ten guaranteed to die.

[pokeraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We have an ethos against Kamakazi missions in my culture. I think the reason is we see them as Evil. So as a measure of Evil, I would rule out #1. It is simply not an acceptable mission under our ethos against Kamakazi.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Why are medals of honor given to guys who throw themselves on grenades? Why is there a memorial at the alamo that gets thousands of visitors a year? Bravery in the face of certain death by US personal is lauded and honored, by countries fighting against us is vilified and abhorred. Strange coinkidink eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken. But we still have an ethos against ordering people or even asking for volunteers for straightforward Kamikazi attacks. It was not "known" that the Alamo was a suicide mission. This is one reason David's scenarios are unreasonable. His conditions require us to imagine perfect mental states which are often unrealistic.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

i realize that this is nitty and i generally refrain from correcting spelling errors, but your repeated misspelling of the word "kamikaze" despite its importance to your argument (and the fact that other posters have written it correctly in this thread)is frustrating. and who the hell is this "we" you are talking about that have an ethos against kamikaze missions? you seem to be arguing that sending in 10 people to die is worse than sending in 20 people, half of whom will die. i realize that it is an idealization of real world events to simplify the probabilities like this, but seriously, your argument has very little weight past the "it makes me feel bad" defense. and please, point out where this doctrine of no suicide missions exists for moments of extreme circumstances (liking a ticking nuclear bomb mission or a meteor heading toward earth). i realize that the usa is opposed to suicide missions in times of war, but the general willingness of the american government to change the rules when it needs to leads me to believe that this doctrine wouldnt hold up in the examples i gave.
the people in the republican debate (and they're stupidly pro-america) seemed to be jumping over each other to support torture in certain circumstances and most of them are pro-death penalty, so its certainly not a "culture of life."

do you honestly believe that, in order to save the world, specifically assigning a group to die is morally distinct from assigning a group twice the size to the same task with a 50% chance of death?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certain that if you were to read PTB's post again without being predisposed to an argument, you'll figure out who the 'we' is and realize you whiffed on this one.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
i realize that the usa is opposed to suicide missions in times of war

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be the "we" I was talking about and the evidence for "our" ethos of aversion to suicide missions. In a later post I did point out that this ethical aversion to suicide missions might be overridden under extreme circumstance. But even in extreme circumstances, when another reasonable option is available I think the ethos of aversion still applies. So I applied it. You may think it's silly to have such an aversion. You may think such decisions should be made strictly on the basis of expected lives lost. You may wish to accept Sklansky's unrealistic scenario of precise probabities being available for making such calcuations. That's certainly your privilege.

The question of Evil in regards to suicide missions probably deserves its own thread. There seems little interest in it here, even though the "Measure of Evil" is the OP topic. I think there is something to it, but it's not a simple question.

PairTheBoard

[kerowo]

Saving the world is fairly important. I think sending more people to their death than you need to in order to feel better about your decision is the only evil part of this question.

[LooseCaller]

i knew you meant the usa, i just felt that it was a little inaccurate to include every member of the country in a group for a decision of the us military. im techinically a us citizen, but i dont think that statement represents my belief system in any meaningful way.

[LooseCaller]

also, you didnt really answer the question. assume the model is accurate, and there is a 50% chance of 20 people dying or a 100% of 10 people dying. is there a moral distinction? if so, why?

im not saying calculations like this are available the vast majority of the time, but it's not impossible to concoct a scenario where this kind of math would be valid.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
also, you didnt really answer the question. assume the model is accurate, and there is a 50% chance of 20 people dying or a 100% of 10 people dying. is there a moral distinction? if so, why?



[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a moral distinction. I make that judgement according to my sense of morality. I base it on putting myself in the place of the men being sent on the mission. I also base it on viewing this particular mission in context with a general application of the tactic of suicide missions. To add credibility to my opinion of the morality I've given the observation of the USA Military policy and my opinion on why that policy has been adopted.

Do you think there is no moral distinction between the general tactic of suicide missions and designing missions whereby men are given a fighting chance to survive? If so, maybe as a USA citizen you should lobby for our military to begin designing weapons systems to take advantage of that tactic. Maybe you can then volunteer yourself, or your son or daughter to be one of the pilots of such a weapons system.

PairTheBoard

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
i imagine you would change your decision if you had to send your father as one of the ten guaranteed to die.

[/ QUOTE ] Funny way to argue. I imagine you would change your decision if your father was man nr. 15 and he would have to go if you picked option 2 or 3, but not 1.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i imagine you would change your decision if you had to send your father as one of the ten guaranteed to die.

[/ QUOTE ] Funny way to argue. I imagine you would change your decision if your father was man nr. 15 and he would have to go if you picked option 2 or 3, but not 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you going to lobby our Military to have them start designing weapons systems based on automatic death of their operators? They might be more efficient you know.

PairTheBoard

[Munche]

[ QUOTE ]
In this example, trying to feel better about the decision leads to pointless deaths. There I just stumbled into what is evil in this situation. Some General getting 2 more people killed so he doesn't feel bad is evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Kerowo. For your last mission, you should bring home as many troops as possible. Also, even though you can't ask for volunteers, you would have additional knowledge which would hopefully allow you to pick the ten best casualties. You may know of 10 troops which would take the mission for whatever reason if given the chance to volunteer. Send them. For example, you know some dream of being remembered for such a mission while others will not want those with children to die during the last mission instead of them. You can use this information to make not only the moral choice based on number killed but also consider the wishes of your soldiers even within this strict scenario.

I agree with PTB that a military program which uses this type of efficient sacrifice is not a good program. However, I believe its not practical, not necessarily evil. In the long run only those that believe in efficient suicide missions would enlist, and overall support for and strength of the military would degrade. However, in this case, it is the proper tactic.

All actions taken by the general may be considered evil. However, if evil exists within all options, option 1 is less evil for this particular mission.

[Siegmund]

It's a bit odd that the 10 men in option 1 can't be randomly selected, but we aren't given any other constraints on it. Taking the wording of the question literally as given, it's a nice opportunity to send the ten least useful (whether that means oldest, dumbest, or whatever else-est) and get some use out of them.

In a more real-world situation, I might have a choice between sending ten of my best men or twenty average men. My choice there is going to depend on the value I attach to the cream of the crop's future contributions if I let them live. (And, yes, I'd send twenty random people to their deaths to save ten Einsteins.)

[oe39]

i'd pick the ten i liked least