Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 117 posts

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#51

Post by calloc »

ewjordan wrote: post #41

Here's one I've always liked, along the same lines, that tends to make even the most committed utilitarians pause: You need to build a driveway up to your new house, and there are two possible routes, each one with a single maple tree in the way. One of the trees is very old, but quite healthy, standing at least 50 feet high. The other was just planted a few months ago, so is still quite small. You're not the one tha…

Since you are asking for people to stand up, yes I will toss the baby overboard. I have no qualms about it in any way shape or form.

The baby has no value, it won't be able to help with our decision making process to get back to shore, it won't be able to solve problems we may find along the way, if we get stranded somewhere it won't be able to build shelter or find food. At that point the baby is nothing but dead weight that requires a constant amount of resources without any returns.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#52

Post by Jeema3000 »

smallblacksun wrote: post #47
autarch wrote: post #8

Another flaw in this sort of study is that there's an enormous disconnect between what we say we would do, and what we would actually do. I might say "yes, I would push Chip/Tyrone over the rail", because I really do believe that's the best thing to do. But if I were actually faced with that dilemma and had to murder someone, could I do it?

There's also the fact that you would be making a complete guess that the man was large enough to stop the trolley in real life, and if he wasn't you would simply be adding another victim. Besides, a man large enough to stop a trolley would be really hard to push.

Exactly. There's no way to know if the action of pushing the fat man onto the tracks would actually stop the train. Worst case scenario, you might end up killing one extra person.

In the 'switching the track' example, on the other hand, the worst case scenario is that your actions have no effect on the outcome and no additional people die than would have died otherwise.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#53

Post by metellus »

ewjordan wrote: post #41

Here's one I've always liked, along the same lines, that tends to make even the most committed utilitarians pause: You need to build a driveway up to your new house, and there are two possible routes, each one with a single maple tree in the way. One of the trees is very old, but quite healthy, standing at least 50 feet high. The other was just planted a few months ago, so is still quite small. You're not the one tha…

Another difference here is old age. Trees don't really die of old age (to my knowledge, and even if I'm wrong it doesn't matter because most people think trees won't die of old age), so both trees have an equal number of years left in their life expectancy. The doctor has already used up a lot of his potential.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#54

Post by mustpax »

ewjordan wrote: post #41

Here's one I've always liked, along the same lines, that tends to make even the most committed utilitarians pause: You need to build a driveway up to your new house, and there are two possible routes, each one with a single maple tree in the way. One of the trees is very old, but quite healthy, standing at least 50 feet high. The other was just planted a few months ago, so is still quite small. You're not the one tha…

A tree, left undisturbed, will go on to live for hundreds of years. So, a tree being relatively elderly does not reduce its remaining life. The medical researcher, on the other hand, has gone through approximately 2/3 of his life. Thinking in terms of person-years saved, it might make sense to save the baby instead. Of course, this is ignoring the aggregate benefit to society the researcher might provide over his remaining years. So it's only utilitarian on an individual level instead of an aggregate level, but it's a utilitarian justification nevertheless.

But then this could just be me trying to retrospectively justify my inclination to save the baby.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#55

Post by notahacker »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #39
sprout wrote: post #15

I find the bit about Iraqis vs. Americans a bit superficial. As a liberal, I would consider collateral damage less of a problem when Americans die because all Americans are responsible for the present situation in Iraq, while most Iraqis are innocent bystanders. I view this as utilitarian: if people who start wars have a greater chance of death than people who don't start wars, this should in theory decrease the inci…

I would consider collateral damage less of a problem when Americans die because all Americans are responsible for the present situation in Iraq, while most Iraqis are innocent bystanders. Why would you say that? If you'll grant me for the sake of argument that the war is justified, then the Iraqi people are every bit as guilty as we are. In both cases, we (and the Iraqis) have allowed our respective governments to do…

You are not your government, and neither are the Iraqis.

If we're talking about collateral damage _in Iraq_ though, it's reasonable to assume firstly that the American (civilian or otherwise) consciously chose to be there, which means they certainly accepted an elevated level of risks and secondly it is reasonably probable that they actively supported and are actively profiting from the war. Choosing a job with an oil company in Basra implies a much greater acceptance of the risks and ethical implications of being there than simply not choosing to overthrow the government. All you can tell about an Iraqi in Iraq is that they haven't managed to get out yet.

The hawk would no doubt approach with a different line; it is less probable that the American is actively or passively supporting hostile combatants attempting to prolong the war not to mention more likely the American happens to be their old buddy from school.

Either way both are making ostensibly reasonable value judgements.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#56

Post by jmatthews »

Periodic wrote: post #28
sprout wrote: post #15

I find the bit about Iraqis vs. Americans a bit superficial. As a liberal, I would consider collateral damage less of a problem when Americans die because all Americans are responsible for the present situation in Iraq, while most Iraqis are innocent bystanders. I view this as utilitarian: if people who start wars have a greater chance of death than people who don't start wars, this should in theory decrease the inci…

> So the question really becomes: kill one man, or kill one man and ruin his family's chance at a decent life. In the article they said that conservatives favored killing the "black" man while liberals favored killing the "white" man. It isn't as clear as the background simply providing more data. The internal stereotype and moral values of the subject are also influencing it. It would be a terrible study if they had…

There's a flaw in the entire data set. I would "kill whitey" or the "blackman" to save the "victim group" but I would know that it was morally wrong. It doesn't test morality, it tests your response to the situation.

Thus my moral code is absolute, and I willing act immorally for a utilitarian outcome.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#57

Post by ewjordan »

metellus wrote: post #53
ewjordan wrote: post #41

Here's one I've always liked, along the same lines, that tends to make even the most committed utilitarians pause: You need to build a driveway up to your new house, and there are two possible routes, each one with a single maple tree in the way. One of the trees is very old, but quite healthy, standing at least 50 feet high. The other was just planted a few months ago, so is still quite small. You're not the one tha…

Another difference here is old age. Trees don't really die of old age (to my knowledge, and even if I'm wrong it doesn't matter because most people think trees won't die of old age), so both trees have an equal number of years left in their life expectancy. The doctor has already used up a lot of his potential.

The doctor has already used up a lot of his potential.

But the baby has almost no potential. Well, that's not entirely clear...

Let me be more specific: the baby has some potential, but since it's too young, we don't know where on the Bell curve of potential it lies. Our change in expected value by throwing the baby overboard and making a brand new one is zero (at least once we casually discard the mother's grief, and the general distaste for throwing babies to sharks :) ).

We have to evaluate this against throwing the doctor overboard and starting with a fresh baby - the doctor has already proven that he's somewhere near the top of the Bell curve, so in order to figure out the utility of that trade, we need to consider how much he's likely to accomplish over the rest of his life as compared to what an average baby will accomplish during theirs.

Perhaps making the doctor 50 years old was a bit much, as it does raise questions about how much life he actually has left, and whether the (say) 20 years that he'll actually be practicing can be considered as useful as the 80 years the newborn has in front of it. I think there's still an argument to be made that 20 years of work from a highly qualified researcher is worth "more" than an average lifetime lived by an average person, but it's not crystal clear.

Suppose I'd made the doctor a brilliant 25 year old making great strides in cancer research - would that make a difference to you?

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#58

Post by lhorie »

Periodic wrote: post #32
lhorie wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It's simply the better of two options. What if it's pushing a philanthropist onto the rails to save 5 serial killers? I'm not entirely sure what's the goal of this exercise. I'd imagine that in real life, regardless of who's getting killed, most people would simply let things run their courses since inaction is generally less risky than action. Then, if confronted, I'd guess most people would probably come up with…

Most people will claim to have absolutist morals. They will say that it is wrong to kill someone and that ends do just justify means. What becomes interesting is that almost anyone will display circumstantial morals if confronted with a trade-off like this. The interesting question is at what point do their morals change and why.

My theory is that "killing = bad" is a default canned answer that society says is "correct" and people don't really think about what-if-I-am-faced-with-a-tricky-life-or-death-situation scenarios since these scenarios are not realistic to begin with.

I'm not very convinced that the assumption that people have a fixed moral system is correct. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense (evolutionarily speaking) to optimize for some abstract ideal consistency rather than fitting into a group. As far as living in a society goes, telling your social circle that you shun all forms of human killing is one thing, actually making a life-or-death decision when there are tricky caveats is completely different.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#59

Post by iuyhgtfvgbhjn »

logicalmind wrote: post #48
iuyhgtfvgbhjn wrote: post #10

That explains the behavior of all the drivers as I cycle to work. They are all moral philosophers and believe that by killing me they provide donor organs to save 6 others. Maybe I need a cycling top that says "I don't carry a donor card"

No offense, I was a successful bmx racer for a number of years so I used to be a hardcore bicyclist, but I really have a problem with bicyclists riding on roads on which they have no ability to maintain the posted speed limit. I experience this nearly every day on a road I drive to/from work. This is a four-lane highway with a posted speed limit of 45mph. It is a favorite of bicyclists for some reason so there are a…

When I'm not cycling I have a Subaru WRX, and yet on the road I'm held up by all these people in SUVs,minivans and pickup trucks that can't do 0-60 in Same on sidewalks - I'm jogging along and the sidewalk is crowded with old people that can't maintain a 50min 10K time, they should get out of my way.

Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

#60

Post by ewjordan »

stonemetal wrote: post #44
ewjordan wrote: post #41

Here's one I've always liked, along the same lines, that tends to make even the most committed utilitarians pause: You need to build a driveway up to your new house, and there are two possible routes, each one with a single maple tree in the way. One of the trees is very old, but quite healthy, standing at least 50 feet high. The other was just planted a few months ago, so is still quite small. You're not the one tha…

But the utility functions are different. baby tree vs adult tree, old tree is better looking(provides more shade more useful right now) old crusty scientist guy vs baby, baby is cuter. If the shark eats the baby it will still be hungry(or get hungry again sooner) old crusty scientist guy is a much larger meal. Also an older scientist might be past his prime and have lower expected utility for the rest of his career w…

* If the shark eats the baby it will still be hungry(or get hungry again sooner) old crusty scientist guy is a much larger meal.*

We'll assume for the purposes of this thought experiment that the shark just wants a nibble - he'll be satisfied for sure with either one.

Also an older scientist might be past his prime and have lower expected utility for the rest of his career while still expecting high pay.

Yes, I realized this after it was too late to edit (well, I still could edit, but people have already replied, so it wouldn't be fair) - I probably should have made the doctor younger.

But in any case, it brings up the question: how young is "young enough" to prefer throwing a baby overboard to throwing a highly promising child/teenager/adult? Is there a "young enough" age for you, or would you always toss the older person, no matter how likely they were to be exceptional for the rest of their life?

Post reply on HN