Here’s another dilemma, somewhat related. I don’t know if it was here or somewhere else that I came across this.
A construction company wants to undertake a project that it expects to be profitable. However, this project will be dangerous and, if it is undertaken, some employees are going to die during its construction. The company has come up with two possible plans for building the project. In one plan, one employee, named John, is certain to die. In the other, there will be exactly three fatalities out of a group of 100, although nobody knows which employees it will be (and cannot know until it happens). The company can’t legally force its employees to work on the project, but it can offer them money to do so. John will not accept any amount of money in exchange for certain death, but the company does have 100 employees that it can pay to accept a 3% chance of death. You, as a government decision maker, now have three choices:
1) Compel John to sacrifice himself so the project can be completed with the fewest number of deaths. 2) Allow the company to implement its second plan, in which three employees, randomly selected from a group of of 100, will die. 3) Deny the construction company permission to construct the project.
1) Compel John to sacrifice himself so the project can be completed with the fewest number of deaths.
2) Allow the company to implement its second plan, in which three employees, randomly selected from a group of of 100, will die.
3) Deny the construction company permission to construct the project.
Either two or three, depending on whether applying this as a general rule would cripple the economy.
If I worked for the company, however, I would probably choose number one, assuming I don’t have the power to prevent the project or it would provide benefits that outweigh his death..
Here’s another dilemma, somewhat related. I don’t know if it was here or somewhere else that I came across this.
A construction company wants to undertake a project that it expects to be profitable. However, this project will be dangerous and, if it is undertaken, some employees are going to die during its construction. The company has come up with two possible plans for building the project. In one plan, one employee, named John, is certain to die. In the other, there will be exactly three fatalities out of a group of 100, although nobody knows which employees it will be (and cannot know until it happens). The company can’t legally force its employees to work on the project, but it can offer them money to do so. John will not accept any amount of money in exchange for certain death, but the company does have 100 employees that it can pay to accept a 3% chance of death. You, as a government decision maker, now have three choices:
1) Compel John to sacrifice himself so the project can be completed with the fewest number of deaths.
2) Allow the company to implement its second plan, in which three employees, randomly selected from a group of of 100, will die.
3) Deny the construction company permission to construct the project.
What choice do you make?
2.
Either two or three, depending on whether applying this as a general rule would cripple the economy.
If I worked for the company, however, I would probably choose number one, assuming I don’t have the power to prevent the project or it would provide benefits that outweigh his death..