Poll: Save One Or Save Many

[Maze1125]

Well I was calculating it as 6,999,999,900/7,000,000,000 chance one of the 100 would not get killed. Then putting that to the xth power to give the me the chances one of the 100 would not get killed in x selections.

Right. As in, we are both correct.
[facetiousness]But you obviously need to go meet 50 more people.[/facetiousness]

Well actually our calculations would give different numbers. Can't just multiply x by 150/7,000,000,000. The proper chance that one will be selected is 150/7,000,000,000*(6,999,999,850/7,000,000,000)^(x-1). Or at least close to that, in actuality we'd need to keep decreasing that denominator with every multiplication. But at 7,000,000,000 that wouldn't matter much if x is only like 5k.

Actually, with the numbers we're talking about, the difference between the two calculations is insignificant.

5000*150/7000000000 = 0.000107142857
1-(6999999850/7000000000)^5000 = 0.000107137119

Which are identical answers to 5 significant figures.

Yes, the correct calculation in a case like this is 1-(1-p)^n, but if p and n are small 1-(1-p)^n =~ np.

 

[BaronUberstein]

Depends on the situation. For example...

Hypothetical 1) The choice is between a family member or the entire staff of a running nuclear power plant, I'm choosing the power plant staff. Meltdown could cause an even larger shitstorm.

Hypothetical 2) Between a family member and a crowd of people at a mini-mall. I'm probably going with the loved one.

Insane Hypothetica 3) Family member VS curing cancer. That family member is going to be 6ft under. Curing a major problem at the cost of one life is worth it.

Really, it matters on the actual number of people and what their profession is known to be. The less I know about the others and the less there are of them, the higher chance I'll pick a loved one. If somebody said they'd kill my brother or the entire CERN staff, I'd say kill my brother. But if somebody said kill an equal number of gas station attendants to the CERN staff or my brother, I'd probably say kill the attendants. They're not bad people, and it probably makes me look bad that I can say I hold such a distinction of people based on their career, but it's how I think.

Then again, this is of course simply working with the two-option parameter. Being me, I'd try to find a 3rd option. Perhaps the good old "Be Batman and beat up the guy with the gun" option.

 

[War Penguin]

Anyone remember that movie where you press a button, someone you don't know dies, and you get money? I think there was meant to be some sort of emotional conflict in that film, I dunno. I'd be hammering that button.

So yeah, I'd absolutely save a loved one. Because I don't know the other people, fuck 'em.
The only drawback would be if that same loved one would then hate you for killing so many people.

Forgive me, but that reminds me a lot of this:

OT: Spock said it best himself: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." So I'd save many, of course.

 

[babinro]

I think it's too situational.

It depends on which loved one. If I know that they'd hate me and themselves for saving them, it helps make my choice.

Until I'm in that situation I don't know what I'd truly pick. I'd like to say I'd save the lives of many though.

 

[Tazzy da Devil]

The loved one. I feel horrible for admitting it, but if it was a choice between thousands of people and my cat, I'd save my cat in a heartbeat. Besides, there's too many people in the world already. Thinning out the population a bit would probably be good for it.

 

[Vivi22]

Depends on the individual, and assuming the multiple people are a random assortment. It the individual in question is my wife, my best friend or my sister then I'll save the individual.

Anyone else and I'd let them die to save the many. Yes, that includes letting quite a number of family members die as well, including my parents.

 

[Yopaz]

I think I would save the loved one because I don't deal with loosing someone I love very well. Sure I could save a hundred and maybe be considered a hero, but I would still be depressed over my personal loss. Also in a situation like this it's more natural to react to saving someone you know and ignore everyone that doesn't matter, which in many cases mean save yourself. There's also the chance I would be unable to react.

 

[Brandon237]

I have a loyalty to the people that I love, and that loyalty obligates me to save them. So, if I had to make the choose that is what I would do, and I don't necessarily think it's the morally wrong choice. We all have are own moral codes that we live by, and mine happens to demand such a loyalty from myself.

That is actually a thought I have had a few times before on this subject, although I wouldn't have said it as eloquently

The people very close to me [footnote]particularly my girlfriend, and the OP was referring to significant others[/footnote] have devoted huge portions of their lives to helping me, spending time with me and making my life worth-while, I would want to protect them. That is just the selfless perspective...

And now onto the selfish one: I could NEVER live with myself being responsible for the death of my girlfriend. The number of other people who would die is largely irrelevant to me so long as it is guaranteed I don't know them, I would save her even over a million people. Because at the end of the day, those people are going to have far less of a bearing on my life than losing her would.

So both out of what the loved one has done to earn that vote of saving from me and my own selfishness say that they will live, the many will die.

 

[BabySinclair]

I'll be pissed about it but the many. My fiance would leave me if I sacrificed others to keep her safe. That and in any scenario like that I would likely default to logic and that dictates I save the greatest number of lives unless that action would lead to more death in the end. The immediate is not as important as the long run.

Then the next step is kill all positive emotions left in me (there's not many as is) and pursue bloody vengeance on whomever put me in that situation with the rest of my life detached from human interactions and no romantic interest ever again.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Nobody linked Star Trek yet?

Well here it is.

 

[Hazy992]

Logically I'd be all utilitarian and save the many, but I'm human and I can't turn my emotions off so I'd mostly like save the people close to me. Sorry world :/

 

[Nietz]

It seems like a hard choice at first, but then I would just ask myself: "What would Spock do?"

 

[Mayhaps]

I know this is a thought experiment but I find it very unlikely that I'd be faced with a heat of the moment situation where I'd get to choose between saving one or the other, knowing the one I didn't choose would die.


With that said: I choose the comfort of me and my 'loved ones' above the potential cancer cure and all that every day. I don't donate 5 dollars to the cancer fond, potentially saving millions. I might buy some cookies on the way home though.

I actually am one of those world parents or whatever they're called, monthly donating to UNICEF. But they are more about human rights, abortion being one of the things they offer to do, so if anything I might have prevented the birth of the one who would cure cancer.

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

I know the correct and more logical answer is to save many, but I'd save one.

 

[Dimitriov]

Well I chose the "loved one option" because that is my priority. But as I would rather sacrifice myself than a bunch of (presumably) innocent people, I'd probably just end up dying while trying to save everyone.

Of course, I have definitely had days where I would have just said "Fuck 'em!"

 

[Scipio1770]

I have a loyalty to the people that I love, and that loyalty obligates me to save them. So, if I had to make the choose that is what I would do, and I don't necessarily think it's the morally wrong choice. We all have are own moral codes that we live by, and mine happens to demand such a loyalty from myself.

So you're saying you would value a loved one over thousands of people. So if I had to choose between my dog and you and your whole family, it's morally permissible to pick my dog?

 

[game-lover]

I'd probably be frozen in indecision or pick the loved one OR obviously need to be in that particular situation to know for absolute certain.

On more than one occasion, I've mentioned how selfish I am. My life and my well being matters more to me than most anyone and anything else. No effing self-sacrifice here.

Taking that... I'd probably be in the selfish thought of asking myself if I could deal with losing someone I love. Probably that answer is a no. So the many would probably lose.

However, the many are more likely to shove me into indecision if I were to learn that perhaps most of them are children. You know... little ones who when they grow up will be the ones that cure cancer or whatever in the future. That might be a larger crisis.

Worse still would be choosing through those children with potential important futures and my nephews. That'd just be simple torture.