Re: A step further.
I completely understand that you might feel this way. I even think that from an emotianal perspective most people (possibly even me) might agree. The point I am trying to make however, is that logically we must answer yes, because in the question it is already stipulated that we prefer this option.
Maybe this becomes a bit clearer if you instead assume that mankind will become sterile immediately. Since it is a fact that we will become happier from this new procedure, this must mean that the value of the having the procedure done is higher than any discomfort we may feel from being sterile (otherwise we would not become happier). So regardless of how bad you think it would be to become sterile, it is a fact that the procedure (whatever it is) is something that is worth more to you, otherwise it would not make you happy.
The logical fallacy that I think people are making here is:
1.First are informed that there is something that will make everyone happier.
2.Then you are informed about one of the negative side effect.
3. Then you start trying to judge if the (to put it in poker terms) happiness H minus sorrow S from being sterile is positive EV or not.
This is where you make your logical error. The induced sorrow has already been taken into account in the happiness H. If it had not, the statement that this procedure will make everybody happier would not be true. The question is asked under the assumption that answering yes is +EV, and answering no is not.
|