The Unconscious Reason People Choose Avoiding Certain Death vs EV

[David Sklansky]

In both my inconsistent jury and measure of evil threads many posters were so averse to incarcerating or killing people with certainty that they chose alternatives where the average number of deaths was greater but there was a chance to escape.

Afterwards they tried to come up with a rational reason to justify that gut reaction. But I doubt anyone actually USED that reason to get to their opinion.

So is it just emotion? Maybe. But I have another theory. I believe that there actually IS an unstated, perhaps subconscious reason. Which is:

Give God a chance to intervene if he sees fit. If one scenario has a higher number of average deaths but may result in fewer, we can pick it because it doesn't tie God's hands. If you leave the result to fate, innocent death or punishment might somehow be on average less rather than more. If all the trials are seperated it is possible that God will see to it that the innocent man will be acquitted while at least some of the others don't.

Admit it. Deep down that is what some of you were thinking. Maybe even the atheist blue bassman who chose a 50% chance of 24 deaths rather the certainty of ten or eleven.

But then where do you draw the line?

[durrrr]

i dont think you realize the bias that is inherent in these questions, namely the fact that people are more prone to post if they feel #2, or #3, as opposed to #1.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont think you realize the bias that is inherent in these questions, namely the fact that people are more prone to post if they feel #2, or #3, as opposed to #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that have to do with my theory about why many do pick those two options?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont think you realize the bias that is inherent in these questions, namely the fact that people are more prone to post if they feel #2, or #3, as opposed to #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding ding.

[ALawPoker]

I don't think it necessarily has to do with "God," but I think you're on to something.

It's pretty clear to me that we care more about things when we have a direct effect on them. If 200 people die in a plane crash, I hardly care. If I hit someone with my car and break his leg, I'll probably feel awful for a long time.

I think a lot of it is that we're wired (or nurtured) to not want to do bad things. So to some degree, an atrocity that is objectively more deadly still might seem better to us than one that is slightly less deadly but that we had more of a hand in.

I think the introduction of chance (rather than necessarily some trust in a God) psychologically detaches us somewhat from the results.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Give God a chance to intervene if he [sic] sees fit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give Satan a chance to intervene if He sees fit.

or

Give Luck [fate?] a chance to intervene if possible. Which was precluded if #1 was picked in the "Measure of Evil" thread. The flip side is that the General 'Plays' or is 'God' if # 1 is chosen - Thus the inherent reluctance of people to choose that scenario.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i dont think you realize the bias that is inherent in these questions, namely the fact that people are more prone to post if they feel #2, or #3, as opposed to #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding ding.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why?

-Zeno

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i dont think you realize the bias that is inherent in these questions, namely the fact that people are more prone to post if they feel #2, or #3, as opposed to #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding ding.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why?

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]
Because it is the immediately obvious answer, and everyone knows, its always a trap.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Give Satan a chance to intervene if He sees fit.

or

Give Luck [fate?] a chance to intervene if possible. Which was precluded if #1 was picked in the "Measure of Evil" thread. The flip side is that the General 'Plays' or is 'God' if # 1 is chosen - Thus the inherent reluctance of people to choose that scenario.

-Zeno



[/ QUOTE ]

That’s interesting. I chose number one, but under the stipulation that the general use lots to determine who go’s. Not because I thought God or Fate would choose the people most deserving to die, but because I figured that people who tend to volunteer would perhaps be the least deserving to die.

[durrrr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i dont think you realize the bias that is inherent in these questions, namely the fact that people are more prone to post if they feel #2, or #3, as opposed to #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that have to do with my theory about why many do pick those two options?

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry i didnt mean to say i thought your theory was wrong haha... i think its right- i just meant i didnt think you realize people are way more prone to post if theyre trying to prove you wrong in their answer or anything like that

[tict0ctoe]

I think it could come down to many factors such as demographics, up-bringing, religion, influences, beliefs, previously read material or lack-of, education and many other factors.

It would be really interesting to find out what an 'official' answer would be in terms of military. After all, I see what you're saying - they are in the 'war-game' and war with the least amount of deaths would be part of their plan.

Perhaps its a good job we ain't Generals.

Interesting stuff though.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
they are in the 'war-game' and war with the least amount of deaths would be part of their plan.


[/ QUOTE ]

wtf gives you the idea that this is how ANY military thinks?

[soon2bepro]

David, it's hope alright, but not necessarily God. In either case it's just an emotion; so why do you say you have "another" theory? You've just explained how some people personify this emotion.

We should all know quite a bit about people giving in to this emotion, since most of us make a living out of the irrational actions conducted under the influence of hope...

Granted, theists are more likely to give in to hope and behave irrationaly. One wonders if it's the believe that makes them this way or if it's the fact that they're this way that makes them believe so easily.

[PairTheBoard]

I don't think that's the reason at all. I think the reason is that we put ourselves in the place of the convicted innocent, or the person being ordered to go on the suicide mission. EV is nice and all but it's not something you care much about if it's you being convicted when you're innocent or you're the one being ordered to fly a plane into ship.

In fact, isn't this how we develop a lot of our secular sense of morality and ethics? On this basis we decide that things like that are morally wrong. We don't want our military ordering suicide attacks and we go to great lengths to avoid convicting innocents because as a culture we have determined these things to be morally abhorrent. They become moral singularities in decisions that otherwise might more simply be made based on EV type factors.

PairTheBoard

[Taraz]

It's actually a well known psychological bias. It's all about loss aversion. We're willing to make a riskier choice if it will mitigate a loss. So we're risk seekers in cases where we might reduce a bad outcome. Conversely we're risk averse in cases where the outcomes are all positive. We'll usually take the smaller "sure bet" rather than the risky jackpot.

There is an psychological/economic theory called prospect theory that deals with these scenarios.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Afterwards they tried to come up with a rational reason to justify that gut reaction. But I doubt anyone actually USED that reason to get to their opinion.
So is it just emotion? Maybe. But I have another theory. I believe that there actually IS an unstated, perhaps subconscious reason.

[/ QUOTE ] David, you are spot on here, Mark Hauser agrees with you. (just the fist web page I pulled up on him.) (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid/52880;jsessionid=baa9)

However, the rest of your post is wild speculation. And likely in gross error. You have presented an argument using only logos in an effort to persuade your audience. Logic is in fact a very good method in all cases to arrive at a reasonable solution, yet i think you are making a mistake to use logic to determine the 3 different possible generals decision ethos. Out ethical decisions, have been forged through the process of evolution to happen at a subconscious level. If we had to logically think through all the elements in any moral decision including the ones you have recently asked about we would never get anywhere. Frozen in indecision the window for action would be ever lost leaving the world without savior. There is no reason to bring god into this, I am not sure why you would do that. I have glazed over some of the logical fallacies you would have to be committing to make this error, assuming you would make such a grave mistake here. And assume it is entirely because you are unaware that this is no real reason to speculate about the subconscious engine's fuel further than loss aversion.

Because a line cannot be draw has no bearing on virtue and goodness.

Although, it may appear that I'm arguing against 10 deaths>11deaths>12deaths. I'm really making a case that 10/10, 11/50, 0or26/100 may not reduce to comparable apples.

Now for my answer. I do not save the world. A world where people are forced to die by my hands is not worth saving. It's a stand not based on logos, but on a character built upon principles.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
Now for my answer. I do not save the world. A world where people are forced to die by my hands is not worth saving. It's a stand not based on logos, but on a character built upon principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're honestly saying that you'd rather have everyone in the world die than 10, 11, or a million, then your character sucks.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now for my answer. I do not save the world. A world where people are forced to die by my hands is not worth saving. It's a stand not based on logos, but on a character built upon principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're honestly saying that you'd rather have everyone in the world die than 10, 11, or a million, then your character sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]In my opinion this world that david created in order to turn an ethics question into a math question doesn't appeal to me. Some things aren't worth the cost, this world is one of them. In the real world you can just ask for willing participants. The implicit assumption is that the world is worth saving, but certain features of the problem included, for good reason, make it a world unworthy of being saved. At worst I'm skirting the question. It's not that I'd rather have this or that, it's that the life's aren't mine to take. If they are mine to take I'd go with 10/10. Simply put I choose not to murder people.

[kerowo]

Wow.

The scenario given has nothing to do with murder. If you seriously believe that the military murders peopls in this scenario then you have no business answering it because your views are just wrong.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow.

The scenario given has nothing to do with murder. If you seriously believe that the military murders peopls in this scenario then you have no business answering it because your views are just wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. All he's saying is he would not make a good general.

That does not make his own personal views wrong. However, they aren't correct for a general.

[kerowo]

I'm going to disagree and claim that murder is not involved in this scenario at all and basing a decision (or lack thereof) based on claiming it is murder is incorrect.

I'm interested in why he (or anyone else) thinks there is murder involved here.

[goodgrief]

Oh, don't you just hate people who are so self-important that thinking well of themselves is more important than doing anything else? So you'd let billions die so that you could continue to pat yourself on the back for your good character. Jeebus. I'd rather be evil and save the billions.


[ QUOTE ]
Now for my answer. I do not save the world. A world where people are forced to die by my hands is not worth saving. It's a stand not based on logos, but on a character built upon principles.

[/ QUOTE ]

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to disagree and claim that murder is not involved in this scenario at all and basing a decision (or lack thereof) based on claiming it is murder is incorrect.

I'm interested in why he (or anyone else) thinks there is murder involved here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed about the reasoning for the action.

However, I think your use of the term is too narrow here. Knowingly initiating an action process in where an individual or individuals lose their lives is murder.

The concept of acceptable losses in combat actions is quite reprehensible to most people, and their emotional reactions show such.

In a scenario in where a person defends his own life by killing somebody, the legal burden is to prove self-defense. The issue at hand is still the same, it is just a broader application in a military scenario.

[goodgrief]

Oh what nonsense. Words have meaning. There are lots of situations where "knowingly initiating an action process that leads to an individual's death" is not murder. Declaring war, planning for war, gearing up for war, training people for war, and sending people out to fight in a war is not murder even though it is certain that some people will die as a result of these actions. Otherwise, we could not have any legal armed forces at all. Another example would be serving on a jury or as a judge on a case where you find for the death penalty. A third example might be knowing that a loved one is terminal and in terrible pain, so you quietly leave the sleeping pills where the person can get at them. All these actions may lead to death of one or more individuals, but they cannot be considered murder.

Sklansky's examples of sending what I presume to be trained fighters on an important mission to save lives, even at cost of their own lives, cannot be murder in my view.




[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


However, I think your use of the term is too narrow here. Knowingly initiating an action process in where an individual or individuals lose their lives is murder.

The concept of acceptable losses in combat actions is quite reprehensible to most people, and their emotional reactions show such.



[/ QUOTE ]

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to disagree and claim that murder is not involved in this scenario at all and basing a decision (or lack thereof) based on claiming it is murder is incorrect.

I'm interested in why he (or anyone else) thinks there is murder involved here.

[/ QUOTE ]I explained that I don't think the killing is justified, unjustified killing is murder. I am perfectly OK with you taking issue with that. There is a lot of wiggle room in what we can justify morally. I hope the rest of my post doesn't merit such criticism. I do however understand most of your confusion, it's the assumptions about the scenario in the question happening in this world. IMO, it's an alternate reality, one that isn't worth the cost to me. But it's simply because the ethical code I have, I have because it was fit to survive in this reality.

I really don't find my answer all that interesting, certainly shocking, but I think it's just a technicality and not a statement of any real substance. If there are topics related to the the first parts of my post, I'd enjoy discussing them.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky's examples of sending what I presume to be trained fighters on an important mission to save lives, even at cost of their own lives, cannot be murder in my view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. People associate the word with "wrongness", and we may be just having a semantic quibble on the use of the term with the same views.

Soldiers, when they sign up, make a voluntary choice to put themselves in danger. The general, in initiating actions that will get his soliders killed, is the one who decides who dies.

He does not take those actions maliciously, so he is not murdering them for his own ends. He is, however, in a position where he is taking life. I view it as murder.

[DougShrapnel]

Goodgrief, I've explained that there is a lot of wiggle room regarding killing that one considers OK, and what one considers murder. There is no real basis for your view to be better than mine, likewise, no basis for mine better than yours.

[ QUOTE ]
Another example would be serving on a jury or as a judge on a case where you find for the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ] If later the person is found innocent I believe murder was commited.

[ QUOTE ]
A third example might be knowing that a loved one is terminal and in terrible pain, so you quietly leave the sleeping pills where the person can get at them.

[/ QUOTE ] Seems pretty justifiable to me.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
...or you're the one being ordered to fly a plane into ship.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is interesting that this has slipped into the discussion. First, Kamikaze pilots were a volunteer force, at least nominally, as obvious peer pressure and other factors of cultural and war time were of influence. But on face it was a volunteer force.

It is also interesting that Kamikaze (see here: Kamikaze-Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze)) literally means "God Wind".

-Zeno

[goodgrief]

The trouble is that your opinion doesn't get to decide a matter of fact. Murder is UNLAWFUL killing. When soldiers kill in a declared war, that isn't unlawful. When a jury and judge condemn a man to death, even if it is later found that they convicted the wrong guy, they condemned him in accordance with the legal procedures of the time and are never at risk for themselves being prosecuted for murder. And so on. What you wish to be true is not relevant.

My view is "better" than yours, because my view is based on the actual meaning of the word "murder," while you appear to believe that "murder" and "kill" mean the same thing. Sloppy use of language often leads to sloppy thinking.



[ QUOTE ]
Goodgrief, I've explained that there is a lot of wiggle room regarding killing that one considers OK, and what one considers murder. There is no real basis for your view to be better than mine, likewise, no basis for mine better than yours.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
The trouble is that your opinion doesn't get to decide a matter of fact. Murder is UNLAWFUL killing. When soldiers kill in a declared war, that isn't unlawful. When a jury and judge condemn a man to death, even if it is later found that they convicted the wrong guy, they condemned him in accordance with the legal procedures of the time and are never at risk for themselves being prosecuted for murder. And so on. What you wish to be true is not relevant.

My view is "better" than yours, because my view is based on the actual meaning of the word "murder," while you appear to believe that "murder" and "kill" mean the same thing. Sloppy use of language often leads to sloppy thinking.



[ QUOTE ]
Goodgrief, I've explained that there is a lot of wiggle room regarding killing that one considers OK, and what one considers murder. There is no real basis for your view to be better than mine, likewise, no basis for mine better than yours.

[/ QUOTE ] This conversation is stupid, murder also means To kill brutally or inhumanly, and to kill intentionally and with premeditation. What is legal killing vs what is illegal killing is extremely uninteresting to me. What is interesting is that we have a innate loose conception hardwired into us that says killing is wrong. It's universal, yet the exceptions allowed very widely. In your opinion all legal killings are not acts of murder, and all legal killings are acts of murder. And by murder i don't mean the legal noun murder I mean the verb to kill intentionally and with premeditation.

[kerowo]

Good lord what a load of horse crap. You can't take the negative connotation of murder away, which is what you are doing by saying it is intentional and premeditated killing on one hand and then with the other hand make a value judgement because to you all murder is bad.

If you are against all killing whether justified or not say so and please refrain from breeding because that mindset is not very useful for long term survival of the species. But please stop saying that justified killing; as is killing enemy soldiers in time of war or executing criminals under the law, is evil. Or at least say which version of murder you are using, the descriptive one or the pejorative one.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
But please stop saying that justified killing; as is killing enemy soldiers in time of war or executing criminals under the law, is evil.

[/ QUOTE ] It is one thing if you think it's justified, but that is ridiculous of you to expect.

[kerowo]

So all war is evil? Or just the ones we start? Are we supposed to avoid war so much that if we are attacked we just surrender? If someone attacks us we are not justified in defending ourselves?

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
So all war is evil? Or just the ones we start? Are we supposed to avoid war so much that if we are attacked we just surrender? If someone attacks us we are not justified in defending ourselves?

[/ QUOTE ] I don't believe in nationalism. I have a problem with the terms you use, the "us" and "ourselves". I don't believe this entity, the "us", exists outside your mind. The way I see the world it doesn't exist, and yes, that means I don't think you have a right to defend yourselves, because that is a meaningless sentence to me when applied to a nation.

I do believe in the people's right to revolt against an oppressive government, though. As in the sum of every individual's right to do so. That means that if you are invaded by someone that enslaves you or otherwise takes away your personal freedom, you have a right to fight against it.

This is not the point, anyway. Even if I disagreed with him when he said the killings were not justified (and I'm sure he thinks they aren't for other reasons than I do), it would be ridiculous of you to expect him to not express his opinion or offer arguments for his views.