Moral Hypothetical
 

I believe James Miller is the original author of the question.....


A company has 100 employees. It has the opportunity to make $1 billion but only if a task gets completed. There are two ways of completing the task.

(1) A specific employee, named John, must die.
(2) Three of the 100 employees will be randomly chosen and killed.

The company can’t force its employees to take any actions, but it can bribe them. John will not accept any amount of money to give up his life with certainty. But all 100 employees would gladly risk a 3% chance of death in return for $5 million. Consequently, the company intends to pay each employee $5 million and complete the task using option (2).

Now imagine that you are a government regulator who has the power to change what will happen. You can:

(A) Forbid the company from completing the task.
(B) Not interfere.
(C) Force the company, and John, to complete the task by using method (1). You could then force the company to give $5 million to each employee.

Assume that all 100 employees are exactly alike except that only John can complete the task by himself. What should you do? Does it matter if John was randomlly chosen right before the game started?



bitch moan count

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

first to say "oats" in this thread

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

how is the answer not A? you are asking if a government official would condone a paid execution

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

also, B) not interfere. Though, in reality, the gov't would go w/ A).

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

[ QUOTE ]
first to say "oats" in this thread

[/ QUOTE ]

104,587 and counting

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

[ QUOTE ]
how is the answer not A? you are asking if a government official would condone a paid execution

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me be clear that you are being asked to do what you think is best and most moral not doing what you think the government would approve of or what would help you keep your job. Not sure if that changes your answer or not, but I wanted to be clear.


bmc

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

[ QUOTE ]
John will not accept any amount of money to give up his life with certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

John doesn't really sound like a team player.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

Imsa is really shining in this thread

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

[ QUOTE ]
how is the answer not A?

[/ QUOTE ]

So just to be clear...

You would want to stop a bunch of people from doing something that all of them had fully agreed to and wanted to do? I'm not necessarily disagreeing; I'm just clarifying your stance.

bmc

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

B not interfere.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

Option C.

Icy posts my friend, Icy posts.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

I don't think there should be government regulators because of gold or something.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

Should've done this to begin with.....

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

It all depends how the people are killed. If somebody justs shoots them point blank, I go with A. However if it is more nuanced, such as dying in some sort of foreseeable work related accident to completing the task, then I gotta go with B.

Frankly, I don't think I can or should prevent people from killing themselves, however I think I should prevent other people from killing each other (therefore the John thing is out).

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

I think that your poop and pee question accurately sums up the worth of this so-called moral hypothetical. I also predict that your toilet quandary will generate far more worthwhile discussion.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that your poop and pee question accurately sums up the worth of this so-called moral hypothetical. I also predict that your toilet quandary will generate far more worthwhile discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have no clue how much debate it'll get here, but its causing quite a bit of interesting debates elsewhere:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/1...-vs-certa.html

bmc

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

Why do you people support the worst poster in the history of 2p2 by taking his asinine threads as serious and devote time to them?

Don't encourage the poor little retarded kid.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

Is this in New City or Yuma?

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

Are John and all the other employees of equal likability?

Oops didn't see that they are. Obviously John gets the axe

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

If I choose C, do they know? I'd probably do that if it just sort of worked out that only John died (this way the remaining wouldn't feel super guilty).

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

i voted poop

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

1
4 5 7




9 9 9

9 9 8 9 9








10 9 9




12 21 22
11 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

14


15 16
17
18
19
20



2 14
14 3 44
















23
24
25 26 27 28 29 30










31







32
32
32
40
32
32
32
32
32 33
32
32
32


34 35 36 37 38

101

39


42
41 44
43
46 45
47 47 48 49 50 51

55 54

56
53
52

57
58

59 60 61 66 62 63 64 63 65 67 36





68

69 70 70

71 71 72 73






74 74 75 76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83

4

84
4
85 88 86

87 85 89 90 90 91






92 92 93 94 95 96

97 98


99 100

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

never really gets old

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

With this kind of company loyalty, CEO should go for the full $33+ billion

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

lol brilliance from pudge.

serious answer: definitely B since the employees are all willing. if a single one wasn't in on it then the answer immediately becomes A.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I choose C, do they know? I'd probably do that if it just sort of worked out that only John died (this way the remaining wouldn't feel super guilty).

[/ QUOTE ]

what? you are so concerned with minimizing the amount of life lost that you'll force death upon an unwilling party rather than allow people their self-chosen equity of .03(death)+.97(5 million)? the employees would feel guilty about you choosing C, sure, but you hiding that fact from them does not make the cause of what would be their guilt (that John was killed, and by your choice) any less appalling.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I choose C, do they know? I'd probably do that if it just sort of worked out that only John died (this way the remaining wouldn't feel super guilty).

[/ QUOTE ]

what? you are so concerned with minimizing the amount of life lost that you'll force death upon an unwilling party rather than allow people their self-chosen equity of .03(death)+.97(5 million)? the employees would feel guilty about you choosing C, sure, but you hiding that fact from them does not make the cause of what would be their guilt (that John was killed, and by your choice) any less appalling.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is my understanding that John has agreed to a 3% chance at dying.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

People kill for fractions of this amount of money. In the end, you only appeal to the semantical side of human nature when debating this kind of question. Although, there are forceful arguments from both sides, what truly counts is what would happen in reality. In reality, this kind of thing goes on everyday, just in the form of war.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I choose C, do they know? I'd probably do that if it just sort of worked out that only John died (this way the remaining wouldn't feel super guilty).

[/ QUOTE ]

what? you are so concerned with minimizing the amount of life lost that you'll force death upon an unwilling party rather than allow people their self-chosen equity of .03(death)+.97(5 million)? the employees would feel guilty about you choosing C, sure, but you hiding that fact from them does not make the cause of what would be their guilt (that John was killed, and by your choice) any less appalling.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot, in your equity analysis, to account for possible friendships within the social world that the company is. Therefore, the equation would be more along the lines of 0.03 (death) + 0.97 (5M) + n/100 (losing a friend) + n/99 (losing a friend) +n/98 (losing a friend) where n is the number of friends hyou have in teh company. You could also write it as 0.03 (death) +0.97 (5M) - 0.03 (VF) where VF is the value you attribute to the company's personnel, as a whole.

I'm a nit.

Obviously the right answer is to let them lottery it up if all of the participants are willing (aka they feel the EV of that is positive for them). This would probably have a waiting list in a poor, unhappy environment but 0 participants in a rich environment. Obviously the willingness to participate is proportional to the inverse of one's wealth and expectation for future income.


BTW, stupid question imo.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, stupid question imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
at least he didn't try to tell us that this was a real company and a real situation they were facing.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

Oh to have the Special Sklansky Forum reopened!

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

[ QUOTE ]
(A) Forbid the company from completing the task.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a certainty that at least 3 lives will be lost. Not a probability, a certainty. This is important.

For example, I think that most of us would agree that the Race to the Moon was a worthwhile endeavor. I believe that there was a high probability that one or more pilots would die; in fact one did (and it could have been prevented). The benefits of the space race, however, outweighted the potential loss of life and thus it went forward.

Here, the only stated benefit would be a monetary gain, and no benefit outside of the company is apparent. In addition, the task will definately leave 3 people dead. Without any further information, I don't see how this can go forward.

I do acknowledge that the employees have consented, but this poses a problem in itself. At the very least, I would argue that if one were to volunteer their life, the potential tradeoff would have to provide a greater potential for saving lives. Otherwise, one does not have the moral right to dispose of themselves without the potential for a greater gain.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

Where is the $1 billion coming from? If it is newly created wealth, then the government should encourage its creation. But if the company would just make $1 billion by taking it from someone else, then the government should forbid it, because the death resulting would be a net decrease in social wealth.

For example, you could imagine that the company discovered a tax loophole whereby it could gain a $1 billion tax credit is one (or three) of its employees is killed. Obviously, the government doesn't want to encourage the exploitation of this loophole.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

[ QUOTE ]

Where is the $1 billion coming from? If it is newly created wealth, then the government should encourage its creation. But if the company would just make $1 billion by taking it from someone else, then the government should forbid it, because the death resulting would be a net decrease in social wealth.

For example, you could imagine that the company discovered a tax loophole whereby it could gain a $1 billion tax credit is one (or three) of its employees is killed. Obviously, the government doesn't want to encourage the exploitation of this loophole.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is all irrelevant. Not the point of the question.


[ QUOTE ]
It is my understanding that John has agreed to a 3% chance at dying.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which makes it ok to kill him with 100% certainty? Agreeing to a 3% of being killed = agreeing to be murdered 100% of the time as long as you aren't aware of it?


[ QUOTE ]
You forgot, in your equity analysis, to account for possible friendships within the social world that the company is. Therefore, the equation would be more along the lines of 0.03 (death) + 0.97 (5M) + n/100 (losing a friend) + n/99 (losing a friend) +n/98 (losing a friend) where n is the number of friends hyou have in teh company. You could also write it as 0.03 (death) +0.97 (5M) - 0.03 (VF) where VF is the value you attribute to the company's personnel, as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Everything you added undoubtedly factored into the employee's decision to agree to the deal. The precise values assigned to the opportunity costs of death, not making 5 million, etc. etc. are unimportant. What matters is that they all voluntarily agreed to the deal.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

[ QUOTE ]
I do acknowledge that the employees have consented, but this poses a problem in itself. At the very least, I would argue that if one were to volunteer their life, the potential tradeoff would have to provide a greater potential for saving lives. Otherwise, one does not have the moral right to dispose of themselves without the potential for a greater gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

True I forgot to mention this in my initial answer. If you don't grant people the right to end their own life (including a bunch of assumptions like not harming others, not providing a greater gain, etc. etc.) then ya I agree A is obvious.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

I am probbaly thinking about this too simply, but the answer IMO is clearly no. The governement must prevent this.

The ONLY way the company makes the money is if it executes 1 specific person, or three specific people. The John option is clearly out, as he is not willing, thus it would be murder (for profit!). The other option would fail anyway, as soon as the 3 people were selected, their lawyers would all argue that each signed a contract that was not legally binding because the conditions (though agreed upon) are neither fair or legal. No judge would uphold the contract.

But, even if 3 did not protest once they found themselevs on the wrong side of death row, the courts would intercede and prevent the company from taking a human life for profit.

It's clearly leaglly wrong. It's also clearly morally wrong, as there is not greater gain for society other than corpoarte and individual wealth.

This would be semi-interesting if the company agreed to give its $500 million directly to starving children or something, but as it is worded there is no societal gain that would cause this to be a moral dilemma.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Where is the $1 billion coming from? If it is newly created wealth, then the government should encourage its creation. But if the company would just make $1 billion by taking it from someone else, then the government should forbid it, because the death resulting would be a net decrease in social wealth.

For example, you could imagine that the company discovered a tax loophole whereby it could gain a $1 billion tax credit is one (or three) of its employees is killed. Obviously, the government doesn't want to encourage the exploitation of this loophole.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is all irrelevant. Not the point of the question.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can this possibly be irrelevant? The question is what sort of private actions should the government encourage/forbid. My answer depends on whether those actions create social wealth. The fact that the company creates wealth for itself does not imply that it has created net wealth. I may have, it may not have; this is not specified by the question.

So the answer is sometimes the government should do one thing, sometimes it should do something else, depending on the nature of the wealth created.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise, one does not have the moral right to dispose of themselves without the potential for a greater gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your basis for asserting this? It seems to me that the state should need a compelling interest to insert itself into what is a critically important decision on the part of the employees. I believe the government should not interfere and that this is actually a very easy decision.

Once government starts deciding for us what is good and right and permissible, we put ourselves on the road to totalitarianism. We are so far down that road now that I doubt very much that we can go back.

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

if i were to ban someone from this thread, would it be more ethical for me to just ban the idiot who started it, resulting in one person being banned for sure, or ban three people in the thread at random?

happy thanksgiving

Re: Moral Hypothetical
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Where is the $1 billion coming from? If it is newly created wealth, then the government should encourage its creation. But if the company would just make $1 billion by taking it from someone else, then the government should forbid it, because the death resulting would be a net decrease in social wealth.

For example, you could imagine that the company discovered a tax loophole whereby it could gain a $1 billion tax credit is one (or three) of its employees is killed. Obviously, the government doesn't want to encourage the exploitation of this loophole.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is all irrelevant. Not the point of the question.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can this possibly be irrelevant? The question is what sort of private actions should the government encourage/forbid. My answer depends on whether those actions create social wealth. The fact that the company creates wealth for itself does not imply that it has created net wealth. I may have, it may not have; this is not specified by the question.

So the answer is sometimes the government should do one thing, sometimes it should do something else, depending on the nature of the wealth created.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok fair enough. I just personally don't find the money to be important, though I suppose there's the ethical way of looking at it and the government self interest way of looking at it and they don't necessarily line up with one another.

Also lol NT nice