• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Will you let random strangers die so your loved one can live?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Would you let random strangers so the person you love lives?

  • Yes I will

  • No I won't

  • I will take the deal even even if it 100 to 1.

  • I will give up the entire world before my loved one dies

Results are only viewable after voting.
sixone said:
What the Devil doesn't tell you is that some reporter is going to find out that you chose to let those ten people die, put your face on every newspaper, magazine, and TV channel, so that you're the most hated person in America. You can never again leave your home without kevlar and guards.

Ten families are taking you to court for the wrongful death of their loved ones, so everything you've earned will be taken from you. Eventually, you won't be able to pay for your own security, so you'll be shot down on the street.

But hey, you saved yourself from the grief that those ten families are suffering. Go you.
Click to expand...

And that's the problem. This cliche "morality play" is too vague to obtain any sort of morality. There are a billion situations where either choice is the best choice, and the details to judge aren't known.

So basically the devil is telling you "flip a coin, one side is bad, I won't tell you which. Muahahahahaha!" Yeah, great morality play OP. 🙄
 
zanosi said:
The results of this poll are ridiculous.

As many posters have already pointed out, making a vague deal with an evil being that is infinitely smarter than you and set on screwing you and the rest of humanity over is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

wow, you guys are reading far too much into this. The thought experiment does not require you to inject assumptions into the nature of the one offering the choice--it's a very simple black and white decision.

Don't know if many of you of faith are having issues with this question simply because you see: "Devil."

How about if we just say: "Al Roker gives you the option to kill 100 strangers so that one of your loved ones will live."

Does that change the game for any of you? It's the exact same situation, and it asks nothing more.
 
zinfamous said:
wow, you guys are reading far too much into this. The thought experiment does not require you to inject assumptions into the nature of the one offering the choice--it's a very simple black and white decision.

Don't know if many of you of faith are having issues with this question simply because you see: "Devil."

How about if we just say: "Al Roker gives you the option to kill 100 strangers so that one of your loved ones will live."

Does that change the game for any of you? It's the exact same situation, and it asks nothing more.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but ATOT has an honored tradition of nitpicking any kind of thought experiment to death. Are we really too dumb to identify the purpose of the question and answer according to the spirit rather than trying to weasel our way out of a straight answer?
 
zinfamous said:
wow, you guys are reading far too much into this. The thought experiment does not require you to inject assumptions into the nature of the one offering the choice--it's a very simple black and white decision.

Don't know if many of you of faith are having issues with this question simply because you see: "Devil."

How about if we just say: "Al Roker gives you the option to kill 100 strangers so that one of your loved ones will live."

Does that change the game for any of you? It's the exact same situation, and it asks nothing more.
Click to expand...

Such an evil act IS a deal with the devil no matter the name given. You cannot change that.
 
Humm.... I'd probably let one of my loved ones die so long as I can go to my neighbors house and slowly kill them and, more importantly, their non-stop barking dog.
 
Jaskalas said:
Such an evil act IS a deal with the devil no matter the name given. You cannot change that.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. If it were the actual devil then the deal backfiring in some way is pretty much guaranteed. If it's simply an evil or immoral deal then it's possible that the deal will proceed exactly as described. 10 people die, your loved one goes on living, and...nothing else. The whole point of the devil angle people were trying to use is that even if you accept the deal, you won't really get the deal, at least not as you expect. The only issue with whoever presents the deal is the effect that might have on the deal itself.

Assume that it happens exactly as described and then you're starting to get the point.
 
Jaskalas said:
Such an evil act IS a deal with the devil no matter the name given. You cannot change that.
Click to expand...


people are inferring that there are extra consequences that will arise from the intent of the choice-giver, external to the simple fact of: some die, some live.

people are even arguing that the choice-giver, like the "devil is known to do" (of course: the devil is mythology. so no one knows what the devil will ever do 😉), will pervert the survival of you and your loved ones into some unfavorable situation like "Oh, but you will spend the rest of your life in prison" or some nonsense.

The choice given is simple. To add any corollaries beyond what is presented is to completely ignore the intent of the problem. It is deflective and establishes the commenter as one unwilling to engage in simple logical theory. (which pretty much explains issues with many internetters and an inability to engage in rational debate)

:colbert:
 
SlitheryDee said:
Yeah, but ATOT has an honored tradition of nitpicking any kind of thought experiment to death. Are we really too dumb to identify the purpose of the question and answer according to the spirit rather than trying to weasel our way out of a straight answer?
Click to expand...

yeah, what you said.

😀
 
I love how a lot of the people who say 'no' are simply saying 'no' because they are afraid of other consequences (being found out, going to hell, fine print, etc) rather than having an actual objection to the question at hand.

We are wired to think that 10 lives > 1 life, but with the world quickly becoming overpopulated, I wonder how long we will keep thinking this? Until our own extinction?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top