Dave Bishop:

"To religious believers:

Would you give up your spot in heaven to a non-believer.
Follow God if you knew you'd go to hell whatever?"

Verrry interesting question. It means a lot to me personally.

I used to be a seriously devout Christian. But I did a lottttt of thinking. Eventually I became so weighed down by the people that I *knew* (because I was taught) would go to hell, I decided that in addition to saving as many as I can while on Earth, that this wasn't enough. No matter who hard I tried, many people would still go to hell. I thought they were innocent, because they were just like me, but I knew that in God's eyes they were sinners who deserved hell. So I prayed earnestly after a lot of though, asking God to send me to hell in place of someone else. I told him I didn't care who, just someone who would've have gone to hell otherwise.

I didn't sense that the prayer was exactly answered with a yes, and I did some research and asked priests etc if that was possible, and they told me no.

So I became very disillusioned and started down the path to agnosticism lol.

Ummm... this WAS about a dilemma I posed at first, right... not Bush... good God, can't you leave the poor guy alone-

Bad president (the one truly great thing I think he did was his speech from Ground Zero... the only time he ever sounded inspired and actually able to speak the English language... but seriously, credit where due, he was good at Ground Zero) but whatever, we're done with him, just let the guy go home and have a beer (I've said it before, I'll say it again- Bush is the kind of guy who'd be fun to get a drink with but NOT the kind of guy I want running anything.)

And yes, I know I just talked about Bush MORE after telling you all to be quiet about it... well, I started the thread, so there. ;)

ANYWAY, back to Dilemma-Land...

Let's try this one:

Two meteors, completely identical and alike, are heading towards two completely identical and alike cities- everything, building for building, tree for tree, crack in the sidewalk for crack in the sidewalk, is the same in both cities. There is exaqctly the same amount of people in one city as there is in the other, and they are the same people- if there is a 22-year old single mother with 12 kids in one, that same mother and those same 12 kids are there in the other.

EVERYTHING is identical... and you can only stop ONE meteor; you have never met anyone in any of the cities and have never been to either city, so you don't prefer one to the other.

Which city do you save?

And HOW do you decide?

The first thing I'd do would be to figure out how there could be to separate, but identical simultaneous situations. There's probably a good chance that you're brain is messed up and you are "seeing double" on one situation. So it wouldn't really matter which one you save, since they are probably both the same city.

You save the one closest to you. obviously there is nothing else to do.

the.dibster is right; however, I'd like to propose that that be amended to "Whichever is easier to save" (which is probably what you actually meant anyway).

OR... you save neither. the meteors crash into each other and ricochet harmlessly away ;)

Darn... I never thought of that. Please never put me in charge of the world's anti-meteor defenses; I'd probably just get everyone killed.

And now, a dilemma similar in intent to the terrorist/healthy person one, but not as easy as the first respondent made it seem.

Dilemma 1. A lethal new disease has been discovered and is expected to spread throughout the country (oh, why not - assume a population of one million) and kill 10000 people. Two different vaccines (X and Y) have been discovered, but there is only enough time to produce one of them.
Option A: Produce Vaccine X, which can be used to vaccinate everyone. It reduces the chances of dying by 1/5 for people who would otherwise have died (assume people who would have survived without the vaccine also survive with it, but you do not know who will die and who will not so you must vaccinate everyone anyway).
Option B: Produce Vaccine Y. It has a 100% rate of success, so no one vaccinated with it will die. However, it is harder to produce, and only one-fifth as many people as with Vaccine X will be able to get the vaccine. You do not know who is more likely to be killed by the disease so the smaller supply will have to be distributed randomly.

Dilemma 2: A lethal new disease has been discovered and is expected to spread throughout the country (assume a population of one million again) and kill 10000 people. Two different vaccines (Q and Z) have been discovered, but there is only enough time to produce one of them.
Option 1. Produce Vaccine Q. You can produce 200,000 copies, and it will save everyone who receives it from dying. However, no one else will be able to receive the vaccine. Results: 2000 saved; 8000 with no chance of survival.
Option 2: Produce Vaccine Z. It only has a success rate of 20%, but you can produce one million of them and vaccinate everyone. Results: 0 lives certainly saved, but 10000 with a 20% chance of survival.


Note: No, there is no "correct" answer on either of them. This is ethics and answers will vary by opinion.

(Wow, it took 15 minutes to type that.)

Numbers confuse me.

That's deliberate; the point is to make you consider the options carefully.

You've got to use the one that everyone can take giving everyone the 20% success rate. There will still be 8,000 deaths but still - it gives everyone the same chance. You can't sit and try to decide who will get the 200,000 vaccines.

Numbers confuse me, too.

But for both I'd have to say that I will take the ones that are certain to save any day...

Assume you use the one that's for everyone but only decreases rather than eliminates the risk... what if the virus mutates, and then that thing is useless, at least with the other the people definitely survive and the danger is abated, as these people (if I understand correctly) are totally immune to the virus and thus it no longer can harm them...

A dilemma based off that dilemma:

WHO, then do you save, if you can only save so many... how do you choose?

Anyone with the username that includes "bear"..... would they be ineligible to get the vaccine? ;-)

In dilema one, you don't know who to give the guaranteed vacine to, so you might save noone, but then you might save everyone. With the one that saves 1 in 5, you should save 2000 and you guarantee that all those who would die with no vacine have a 20% chance. I'd go that way.

Dilema 2 is the same for me. Unless you know who the victims are going to be, make certain everyone can get the vacine so all have an equal chance of surviving.

I think you mean 2,000, Thucydides, although if you're contradicting what I thought I wrote it's probably my fault for typing carelessly.


So, we have some disagreement here:
Thucydides says you should give everyone the vaccine with the 1/5 success rate, because everyone gets the same chance, and you can't decide whom to give the vaccine to.
obiwanobiwan says you should take the ones that guarantee someone a chance of survival, even if it means some people will have no chance.
Draugnar (apparently - correct me if I'm wrong) agrees with Thucydides, as do I.

Statistically, if you ask this to the general public, almost everyone will take the guaranteed-survival ones (even though they save the same number of lives and give some people no chance) on the grounds that it is wrong to "gamble" with lives.

Remember, these are deliberately phrased so that there is no "correct answer".

As for obiwanobiwan's tangent dilemma... personally, I'd give it out completely randomly, although I'm sure I'm in the minority on this one.

I do agree Paper Markets, and the reason is that the guaranteed survival does not guarantee that anyone who wouldn't have survived without (the 1% of the million person population people) would necessarily get the vacinne. There is a chance that all the vacinne would go to those who would survive anyhow. The gamble is whether or not the vacinne would be given to the right 20% or not versus whether or not the ones destined to die without it get lucky and make the 20% odds that it works for them. Honestly, it is a gamble either way, but I'd rather see everyone get the shot than risk none of those who would die from it

Huh, I never actually thought of it that way. I had been asking whether anyone had a preference between two ways of saving 2000 people (most humans do, but since this isn't a telephone survey I can ask for explanations) to see if anyone thought the different ways of stating what is essentially the same option make it sound better to anyone.

What I never saw (and I'm glad you pointed it out) was that choosing an option was gambling whether or not the vaccines would be given to the right people. This is where obiwanobiwan's dilemma becomes relevant.

WHY give it out randomly- fairness?

Life is NOT fair... and a convict or a failed C-list actor who's gotten in trouble with the law or a drug addict or whatever doesn't quite seem as in line to get the vaccine for me than the President, our treasured writers... well, if we still HAD treasured writers (seriously, who do we have nowadays that we can honestly say writes good, juicy, meaningful stuff, either philosophical like Kant and Nietzsche and Sartre did, or literature like the Edgar Allen Poes and Emily Dickensons and Samuel Becketts?)

There is no objective standard as to who deserves it over who (other than random, and I've already said that's just not wroking for me) so I suppose it would have to be subjective... who to save...

Well, the leadrs of course, Congress and the President and his Staff... who else?

If it was YOUR decision... who...?

Congress? HA. they are free to die ;-)