Alternative phrasing of the problem: do you prefer a certain chance of having a dust speck in your eye, or a one-in-3^^^3 chance of being tortured for 50 years?
When you consider that we take action to avoid minor incomforts, but that we don’t always take action to avoid small risks of violence or rape etc., we make choices like that much pretty often, with higher chances of bad things happening.
Certain chance of dust speck = 3^^^3 people get dust specks;
One-in-3^^^3 chance of torture = one person gets tortured for 50 years.
(Just consider a population of 3^^^3, and choose between them all getting dust specks, or one of them getting tortured. If I was in that population, I’d vote for the torture.)
This alternate phrasing (considering a population of 3^^^3 and choosing all dust specks vs one tortured) is actually quite a different problem. Since I care much more about my utility than the utility of a random person, then I feel a stronger pull towards giving everyone an extra dust speck as compared to the original phrasing.
I think a more accurate rephrasing would be: You will live 3^^^3 consecutive lives (via reincarnation of course). You can choose to get an extra dust speck in your eye in each lifetime, or be tortured in a single random lifetime.
I’m not sure how the population-based phrasing changes things. Note that I didn’t specify whether the decider is part of that population.
And I don’t think it even matters whether “I” am part of the population: if I prefer A to B for myself, I should also prefer A to B for others, regardless of how differently I weight my welfare vs. their welfare.
Alternative phrasing of the problem: do you prefer a certain chance of having a dust speck in your eye, or a one-in-3^^^3 chance of being tortured for 50 years?
When you consider that we take action to avoid minor incomforts, but that we don’t always take action to avoid small risks of violence or rape etc., we make choices like that much pretty often, with higher chances of bad things happening.
Wait. Which side of the rephrasing corresponds to which side of the original?
Certain chance of dust speck = 3^^^3 people get dust specks;
One-in-3^^^3 chance of torture = one person gets tortured for 50 years.
(Just consider a population of 3^^^3, and choose between them all getting dust specks, or one of them getting tortured. If I was in that population, I’d vote for the torture.)
This alternate phrasing (considering a population of 3^^^3 and choosing all dust specks vs one tortured) is actually quite a different problem. Since I care much more about my utility than the utility of a random person, then I feel a stronger pull towards giving everyone an extra dust speck as compared to the original phrasing.
I think a more accurate rephrasing would be: You will live 3^^^3 consecutive lives (via reincarnation of course). You can choose to get an extra dust speck in your eye in each lifetime, or be tortured in a single random lifetime.
I’m not sure how the population-based phrasing changes things. Note that I didn’t specify whether the decider is part of that population.
And I don’t think it even matters whether “I” am part of the population: if I prefer A to B for myself, I should also prefer A to B for others, regardless of how differently I weight my welfare vs. their welfare.
You’re right, for some reason I thought the decider was part of the population.
I’ve also updated towards choosing torture if I were part of that population.