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

71–80 of 117 posts

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

#71

Post by tome »

ewjordan wrote: post #60
stonemetal wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reali…

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.

Meh. Then cut off your arm and give it to him. The problem with these philosophical experiments is controlling external variables. It just can't be done.

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

#72

Post by Retric »

ewjordan wrote: post #60
stonemetal wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reali…

I think peoples gut reactions is somewhat based on “Number of lost potential decedents in 50-200 years based on primitive life expectancy.” At which point a 15 year old has greater value than both a 50 year old and a baby. This also explains why you get women and children then men then elderly.

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

#73

Post by rdrimmie »

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…

I love the conflict. I guarantee you that my answer has changed since becoming a father, too.

A bit of indulgent nit-pickery: My first inclination would just be to move the younger tree. It wouldn't add significant costs to the investment of building a new road.

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

#74

Post by Retric »

VladRussian wrote: post #63
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…

the moral line isn't between tossing baby or doctor out. No. The moral line is between whether you're able to kill a person ("toss out to save somebody else" - our human killer brain is good with coming out with "good/valid" reasons to kill) or not. If you're able to kill, then it is just a small technical detail whom to kill and why.

I think that vast majority of people would kill under some circumstances. EX: Conscripted army’s have worked fairly well throughout history.

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

#75

Post by Perceval »

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?

This disconnect between what someone says and does when polled on questions involving race is called the 'Bradley Effect': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

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

#76

Post by notahacker »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #61
notahacker wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 oi…

You are not your government, and neither are the Iraqis. I would say that our nation is us, and the same is true of the Iraqis. The bad things that my nation does (including the entity that it allows to govern) is my responsibility, especially because its acts are enabled because of my production (i.e., taxes, technology I develop, etc.). The very same thing is true of Iraqis. They allowed their government to continu…

Given that the only feasible mechanism for the respective populations to promptly remove Bush/Hussein from power in 2003 would involve violence, a significant likelihood of failure and a high degree of probability that any regime emerging to fill the power vacuum would be worse, I'm not remotely convinced that their inaction implies accountability for Bush/Hussein's actions. Acquiesence != acceptance, never mind accountability.

It's actually an interesting reframing of the original problem: allowing a particular regime to remain in power and embark on a very wrong course of action might be the "least worst" option that is practically possible. In all but the worst case regime the rational utilitarians fearing the consequences of violent revolution actually find themselves in agreement with the pacifist absolutists.

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

#77

Post by bpyne »

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…

Oddly, my mind went immediately to the 50 yo being larger and, in a flimsy lifeboat, more costly space-wise. In a life-threatening situation, I don't think I would stop to consider the relative benefit of each person to society.

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

#78

Post by aristus »

ewjordan wrote: post #60
stonemetal wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reali…

The doctor is capable of choosing to sacrifice himself (cough as are you). The baby is not. I don't know whether that argument is outside of the utilitarian sandbox.

Does utilitarianism demand total knowledge? Can't you posit a baby exception wired into your brain (by evolution, $deity, whatever), obey it, and still be an orthodox utilitarian?

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

#79

Post by defen »

sprout wrote: post #64
defen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to play the odds and assume the blueblood is a "parasite", shouldn't you also assume that the lower-class black man is not present to support his family anyway?

Please finish reading my comment.

I didn't mean in your response to the hypothetical question ('assume each is a model citizen') - I meant in real life: "my impression of the name "Chip" is that he's a worthless individual who contributes nothing to society."

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

#80

Post by philwelch »

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…

If there was sensible infrastructure for commuting by bicycle, there wouldn't be a problem. As it stands you're just asking people to give up a healthier and cheaper means of transportation with fewer negative externalities for little more than the convenience of motorists[1]. That's bad public policy.

[1] I don't buy the safety argument one bit--cars put cyclists in danger far more than cyclists put cars in danger.

Post reply on HN