A moral choice

[Xanadu84]

I was pondering this today and thought id throw it out for discussion.

You are flying a helicopter in a zombie outbreak. The helicopter can safely hold you and 1 passanger. For each additional passanger, there is a cumulative 20% chance of the copter loseing control, crashing, and burning, killing everyone aboard. So at 3 people total, there's a 20% chance, 40 at 4, etc. You land and see 5 people. You only have time for 1 trip, after which the city will be nuked, ending the outbreak. You do have plenty of time to decide, and have pencil, paper and a calculator. The zombie hoard is unstoppable. Only you can fly throw helicopter.

First the easy question. What would you do? The harder questions are these: what action is morally right, and what action is heroic? Please answer the spirit of the question rather then looking for loopholes.

Ill give my math later.

 

[Xanadu84]

Not even going at all. There are no morals when your life is included.

But you are alreadt there. That's the hypothetical.

Also, what choice would be the moral one, or the heroic one? That's probably more interesting.

 

[Xanadu84]

This isn't making sense... the helicopter can hold 2 people but somehow there will be enough room for 5 people?

People can't hold on to helicopter skids for more than 15 minutes max (people tried in Saigon, didn't work too well for them)

Weight limits. You can squeeze more people in, but weight might unbalance the heli. The people are similar enough that it makes no difference who you pick. Also, allow me to point to, "answer in spirit", and don't worry about finding little exploits. The question is mainly about odds and probability.

 

[Lunar Templar]

any reason why we should save one over another? i note a lack of reasoning behind what is effective sentencing people to death

 

[Xanadu84]

any reason why we should save one over another? i note a lack of reasoning behind what is effective sentencing people to death

No significant differences between people. Its all about balancing saftey for the fewer, versus greater risk with greater reward. You can save a certain number of people. Assume that everyones life is of equal value. Except maybe yours, depending on your philosophy. Really you could ask this question as purely an mathamatical equation.

 

[Slaanesh]

With me flying a helicopter theres a good chance I'd crash it right into them.
"Look Bobby, a helicopter! We're save-WHAT THE FU"BOOOOOOOOOOM

If I actually knew how, I'd only take1 person with me. The hot chick. If no hot chick available, they can fight for the seat...and my amusement.

 

[Xanadu84]

Not even going at all. There are no morals when your life is included.

But you are alreadt there. That's the hypothetical.

Also, what choice would be the moral one, or the heroic one? That's probably more interesting.

Taking every person with you is heroic but also idiotic because you also risk their lives with the chance of crashing. A morally right decision is taking only one passenger, because you save someone without "heroically" risking yourself. A true "morally right" and "heroic" decision would be if a passenger sacrificed his seat for another passenger. However, if I was already at the island, I would go back with nobody. Because, you know, I love myself more than anyone else.

But how is it heroic to needlessly kill everyone because you don't want to feel guilty? Wouldn't making a tough decision to sacrifice a few be truly heroic? Isn't loading up the helicopter functionally very similar to being a murderer, just a dumb one?

Also, would't you save one person? That is exactly as selfish as saving no one. Risk is the same., and saving no one means you actively want people to die, and will go out of your way to kill strangers.

And of course, what is the moral decision? Not your decision, but one consistent with a good moral philosophy?

 

[Lunar Templar]

any reason why we should save one over another? i note a lack of reasoning behind what is effective sentencing people to death

No significant differences between people. Its all about balancing saftey for the fewer, versus greater risk with greater reward. You can save a certain number of people. Assume that everyones life is of equal value. Except maybe yours, depending on your philosophy. Really you could ask this question as purely an mathamatical equation.

*shrugs* in that case, all or nothing. sure, highest risk of every body dieing but, i see no reason to not save every body. I'll assume, for the sake of the exercise the I'm aware of the choppers limitations, and, would probably know how to compensate for the balance issue, if they are all 'equal' then there's probably a viable solution to reduce the high odd of everybody dieing (involving weight distribution) as well as my own presumed ability's with said helicopter. (one dose not just do something like this with out the skills to back it up)

TL/DR: save everybody despite the risk

 

[isometry]

The mathematical answer would be to maximize the expected number of survivors.

Let n be the number of people I choose to pickup. Then the number of survivors if we don't crash is n + 2, and the probability of not crashing is (5-n)/5, so the expected number of survivors S is:

S = (n+2)(5-n)/5

n = 0, S = 2
n = 1, S = 2.4
n = 2, S = 2.4
n = 3, S = 1.2
n = 5, S = 0

So n = 1 or n = 2 would both be logical courses of action with equivalent expected outcome on average.

Personally, I don't believe "every life is equal" in this type of situation, so I would need to know the details of the people I would be saving. If they are drawn from the population at random then I wouldn't pick up any of them.

 

[godofallu]

The heroic thing is to take everyone.

The smartest thing is to not land, because you will most likely be killed by the enraged people who you would have to attempt to leave behind.

PS: OP i'm sorry about all of the d bags making your life difficult by questioning the question, or looking for stupid loopholes.

 

[Tommeh Brownleh]

Hmm.... people suck. They're left for the dead as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I would save all the children, then add more until we hit 40% survival chance. Also, I don't think helicopters usually work that way. I'm pretty certain a helicopter's limiting factor is volume rather than weight when dealing with objects of human density.

Edit: the other people I would add would have to draw straws or something.

 

[chaosinterlude]

I'd ignore them.

We can't assume that any of those survivors would simply abide by your decision, especially considering it would equate to a death sentence to anyone left behind. Additionally, you can only hope that out of the bunch, you are the only one who knows how to pilot this helicopter (for the aforementioned reason). As sad as the scenario is, there are too many variables to consider to guarantee your safety.

 

[Darknacht]

They would mob the helicopter causing it to crash so I would not land. However, amusing they would do what I said I would take 2 people but they would have to cut their arms and legs off so that they don't unbalance the helicopter.
Also risking other peoples lives is not heroic, so taking all of the people, even if they are armless and legless, is not heroic.

 

[Stravant]

You land and see 5 people. You only have time for 1 trip
Ill give my math later.

Call me immoral, but if I only have time for one trip I'm wondering why I bothered to land in the first place, even if I saw people.

If I land it might cost me the time I'd need to escape.

My choice : I wouldn't even land in the first place, let alone try saving the people. Why? The human race could use some depopulation every now and then (Yes I'm serious that's why)

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

I would take the most attractive female and leave.

If none of them were attractive females, I would just say fuck it and leave anyway.

 

[LordOfAllHeSurveys]

i would give three people a rescue. Why? Because i would want to have the three people on the helicopter i know ill have a chance to save.