“I guess if you really feel the question is so confused as to be answerless, I’ll accept that. I would still challenge you to fill in plausible assumptions and state a preference.”
Remember the story, “The Lady and the Tiger”? The question was carefully formulated to be evenly balanced, to eliminate any reason to choose one over the other. Anything that got used to say one choice was better, implied that the story wasn’t balanced quite right.
We could do that with your story too. If 3^^^3 people is enough to say it’s better to torture one person, we could replace it with a smaller number, perhaps a googleplex. And if that’s still too many we could try just a google. If people choose the specks we could increase the number of people, or maybe increase the number of specks.
At some point we get just the right number of specks to balance the torture for a modal number of people, and we’re set. The maximum number of people will be unable to choose, because you designed it that way.
You did not say what happens if I don’t choose. This is a glaring omission.
OK, let me tell one. You and your whole family have been captured by the Gestapo, and before they get down to the serious torture they decide to have some fun with you. They tell you that you have to choose, either they rape your daughter or your wife. If you don’t choose which one then they’ll rape them both. And you too.
Do you choose? If you refuse to choose then that’s choosing for both of them to be raped. And you too.
But then, if you do choose, they rape them both anyway. And you too.
In the end, the crime is committed not by the person who has to choose between two presented evils, but by the person who sets up the choice. Choose the lesser of the evils, preferably with math, and then don’t feel responsible.
“I guess if you really feel the question is so confused as to be answerless, I’ll accept that. I would still challenge you to fill in plausible assumptions and state a preference.”
Remember the story, “The Lady and the Tiger”? The question was carefully formulated to be evenly balanced, to eliminate any reason to choose one over the other. Anything that got used to say one choice was better, implied that the story wasn’t balanced quite right.
We could do that with your story too. If 3^^^3 people is enough to say it’s better to torture one person, we could replace it with a smaller number, perhaps a googleplex. And if that’s still too many we could try just a google. If people choose the specks we could increase the number of people, or maybe increase the number of specks.
At some point we get just the right number of specks to balance the torture for a modal number of people, and we’re set. The maximum number of people will be unable to choose, because you designed it that way.
You did not say what happens if I don’t choose. This is a glaring omission.
OK, let me tell one. You and your whole family have been captured by the Gestapo, and before they get down to the serious torture they decide to have some fun with you. They tell you that you have to choose, either they rape your daughter or your wife. If you don’t choose which one then they’ll rape them both. And you too.
Do you choose? If you refuse to choose then that’s choosing for both of them to be raped. And you too.
But then, if you do choose, they rape them both anyway. And you too.
What should you do?
In the end, the crime is committed not by the person who has to choose between two presented evils, but by the person who sets up the choice. Choose the lesser of the evils, preferably with math, and then don’t feel responsible.