The Utilitarianism Versus Rights Poll

[Vitalik Buterin]

Assume that the people and person are all randomly selected from the world population at large, ie. if you do nothing, X randomly selected people will die, and if you act one randomly selected person will die. There are no legal or social consequences to you personally.

[1714174241]

1714174241

[1714174241]

1714174241

[Explodicle]

What confuses me are the people who picked between 2 and infinity. Why THAT number?

[Hawker]

Assume that the people and person are all randomly selected from the world population at large, ie. if you do nothing, X randomly selected people will die, and if you act one randomly selected person will die. There are no legal or social consequences to you personally.

So basically we choose a person at random, kill her and harvest her organs to save a number of lives.

I went with infinity.  Its never justified.

[Vitalik Buterin]

Assume that the people and person are all randomly selected from the world population at large, ie. if you do nothing, X randomly selected people will die, and if you act one randomly selected person will die. There are no legal or social consequences to you personally.

So basically we choose a person at random, kill her and harvest her organs to save a number of lives.

I went with infinity.  Its never justified.

How interesting, especially given that you tend to oppose that kind of morality in most of the other discussions I see here.

[Vitalik Buterin]

What confuses me are the people who picked between 2 and infinity. Why THAT number?

Principles can have weights other than zero and infinity.

[BoardGameCoin]

An example can make it clearer:

Imagine that you are in a Nazi internment camp. They give someone a gun and tell them to shoot one of your fellow prisoners, or they will shoot four prisoners. The prisoner refuses, they shoot him and one other prisoner and then hand you the gun. What do you do?

I'd like to think that I would shoot one of the guards, but it's more likely that I and another prisoner would die. Or its possible that I would kill another prisoner. But I think the existence of the dilemma is the true evil. I'm not sure you can fault the prisoner too strongly for either decision.

-bgc

[Hawker]

Assume that the people and person are all randomly selected from the world population at large, ie. if you do nothing, X randomly selected people will die, and if you act one randomly selected person will die. There are no legal or social consequences to you personally.

So basically we choose a person at random, kill her and harvest her organs to save a number of lives.

I went with infinity.  Its never justified.

How interesting, especially given that you tend to oppose that kind of morality in most of the other discussions I see here.

I have never advocated killing people at random :S

[Vitalik Buterin]

I have never advocated killing people at random :S

Alright, I'll explain more. The underlying purpose of this poll was to investigate people's conceptions of the relative importance of the "do no harm" sort of morality such as that of the Non-Aggression Principle and the utilitarian morality of cost-benefit analysis. You have basically just said that no amount of benefit justifies harm, a viewpoint which many people here support even to what I think are ridiculous extremes, but in most discussions of politics on this forum I see you arguing that rights are arbitrary and stealing, coercion, etc are perfectly acceptable if they achieve a greater good. I'm interested in understanding what difference between those situations and this one you see that leads you to lean toward utilitarianism there but emphasize non-aggression here.

[Hawker]

I have never advocated killing people at random :S

Alright, I'll explain more. The underlying purpose of this poll was to investigate people's conceptions of the relative importance of the "do no harm" sort of morality such as that of the Non-Aggression Principle and the utilitarian morality of cost-benefit analysis. You have basically just said that no amount of benefit justifies harm, a viewpoint which many people here support even to what I think are ridiculous extremes, but in most discussions of politics on this forum I see you arguing that rights are arbitrary and stealing, coercion, etc are perfectly acceptable if they achieve a greater good. I'm interested in understanding what difference between those situations and this one you see that leads you to lean toward utilitarianism there but emphasize non-aggression here.

The NAP is not a "do no harm" thing.  It allows corporate entities to acquire monopoly power on violence.  If the NAP worked, no-one would oppose it - but as you guys describe it, it means abandoning freedom and hoping that the all powerful "defence agency" that ends up running your territory is kind to you.

[myrkul]

I have never advocated killing people at random :S

Alright, I'll explain more. The underlying purpose of this poll was to investigate people's conceptions of the relative importance of the "do no harm" sort of morality such as that of the Non-Aggression Principle and the utilitarian morality of cost-benefit analysis. You have basically just said that no amount of benefit justifies harm, a viewpoint which many people here support even to what I think are ridiculous extremes, but in most discussions of politics on this forum I see you arguing that rights are arbitrary and stealing, coercion, etc are perfectly acceptable if they achieve a greater good. I'm interested in understanding what difference between those situations and this one you see that leads you to lean toward utilitarianism there but emphasize non-aggression here.

The NAP is not a "do no harm" thing.  

I suggest you read it again: No person has the right to initiate force or fraud against another person.

[Vitalik Buterin]

The NAP is not a "do no harm" thing.  It allows corporate entities to acquire monopoly power on violence.  If the NAP worked, no-one would oppose it - but as you guys describe it, it means abandoning freedom and hoping that the all powerful "defence agency" that ends up running your territory is kind to you.

I actually didn't want this to become a thread with people arguing about the stability of an anarchy - that's why I deliberately depoliticized the question and stripped it of all context. I'm interested not in the question of everything we have now versus anarchy, but rather the marginal question of implementing some of the policies we have now versus not implementing them (or even implementing them to a 1% smaller degree). If government had a policy of killing 10 people per year and spreading their organs around to save 200 lives, judging by your answer you would support a bill reducing the numbers to 9/180 (if stronger bills were out of the question). But policies which harm some people to a lesser degree than death (eg. taxation, business regulation, etc) you would not support a similar proportional reduction in, provided that the good that the policies do outweighs the bad by a similar proportion.

When I made this poll, I thought that you would be one of the people espousing the utilitarian "2" position and I'm honestly wondering why you make a different choice in these 2 cases.

[Hawker]

I have never advocated killing people at random :S

Alright, I'll explain more. The underlying purpose of this poll was to investigate people's conceptions of the relative importance of the "do no harm" sort of morality such as that of the Non-Aggression Principle and the utilitarian morality of cost-benefit analysis. You have basically just said that no amount of benefit justifies harm, a viewpoint which many people here support even to what I think are ridiculous extremes, but in most discussions of politics on this forum I see you arguing that rights are arbitrary and stealing, coercion, etc are perfectly acceptable if they achieve a greater good. I'm interested in understanding what difference between those situations and this one you see that leads you to lean toward utilitarianism there but emphasize non-aggression here.

The NAP is not a "do no harm" thing.  

I suggest you read it again: No person has the right to initiate force or fraud against another person.

That is just a subset of the golden rule.  But real people do resort to violence and we use our legal frameworks to limit this.  The NAP creates a "winner takes all" world where the most fire-power becomes the sole provider of violence.  That is not a moral basis for a society.

[Explodicle]

I'm a Utilitarian, but I still support the NAP because I think supporting the NAP will save more lives than supporting a different policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_utilitarianism

In the "magic box" from the OP I voted for "2", but if it specified "by forming a group of organ thieves" I would have voted for "over 1 million". That team of organ thieves would inevitably be corrupted, but in my imagination the "magic box" was perfect. Maybe I voted wrong.

I guess what that boils down to is that I might even have ended up a Communist if I thought it would actually work properly (which it doesn't).

[Raize]

I am a deontologist of sorts, but unwilling to dismiss rule consequentialism entirely. I think that laws should be deonotological in nature, but justice should be consequentialist. I picked "infinity" in the poll, because I would be unwilling to ever kill one innocent person to save many, but if someone else did it, I'd be just as unwilling to punish them if several lives were saved.

I often wonder if this makes me some sort of amoral person, that I can't make some sort of accurate decision on these sorts of things. Ultimately it would depend on a huge number of factors based on an accurate assessment of my senses that I just can't see any one example being cut and dry on.

I was asked if I would shoot through a hostage to kill a perpetrator that had a nuclear weapon strapped to them in a crowded area. I immediately started asking questions, would the bomb go off anyway if they died (a kill switch)? Did I *really* need to shoot the hostage?

It just seems to me that the intent of our actions are to save lives, not to purposely decide if one life is really irrelevant to some greater cause. It cheapens the argument to say that one person must die to save others, because that's never what crosses our mind when we consider these scenarios. I'd shoot to kill an armed bomber because they were a threat, and if the consequences of my actions were that others died, then at that point I would probably be willing to deal with them.

That's why I think we're fortunate enough to have a system of justice where the punishment meets the crime. And that's probably the biggest thing I take away from these moral questions on utilitarianism versus deontology.

[myrkul]

To the two people who picked a number from 3 to 15:

I'm curious, why specifically that number?

[Kluge]

Why call it "utilitarianism vs. rights?"

Maybe I believe the Useful have rights (rather, privileges I respect), the Useful Assholes have superior rights, but the Useless Assholes have no rights. As utilitarian as that may be construed, it doesn't mean I'd be willing to kill a random person for two people I know nothing about. Not all people are of equal utility, and I may very well end up killing a Useful Asshole for two Useless Assholes, which would be a net loss. Considering my generalized views of the population collectively, then, I pick "infinity" as a place-holder for "let the original fellow die - he's probably a Useless Asshole, anyway."

Now, if you were asking me a useful question which requested I disclose the minimum number of randomly-selected Useful Assholes I'd need to save to be willing to kill one Useless Asshole, I could give you a useful answer. "Zero. Har, har, har, guns & nekkid chicks."

[NghtRppr]

Even if everyone will die unless I cause one person to die, I would not do it.

[ineededausername]

Even if everyone will die unless I cause one person to die, I would not do it.

O.o

I would not even hesitate to shoot that one person in your hypothetical scenario.

[myrkul]

Even if everyone will die unless I cause one person to die, I would not do it.

O.o

I would not even hesitate to shoot that one person in your hypothetical scenario.

Well, it depends on the situation. If it were a black box, push the button, one random person dies, if not everyone dies, No, I'm not going to push that button. I will not become a murderer. On the other hand, if it was a man who had one of those magic black boxes that was going to kill everyone if he pushed it, I wouldn't hesitate to stop him, with lethal force if need be.

[NghtRppr]

On the other hand, if it was a man who had one of those magic black boxes that was going to kill everyone if he pushed it, I wouldn't hesitate to stop him, with lethal force if need be.

I was responding to the OP. If we propose your scenario, it would just be self-defense and I agree with you.

[Topazan]

Even if everyone will die unless I cause one person to die, I would not do it.

O.o

I would not even hesitate to shoot that one person in your hypothetical scenario.

Well, it depends on the situation. If it were a black box, push the button, one random person dies, if not everyone dies, No, I'm not going to push that button. I will not become a murderer. On the other hand, if it was a man who had one of those magic black boxes that was going to kill everyone if he pushed it, I wouldn't hesitate to stop him, with lethal force if need be.

Hypothetically, would that change if he didn't know that pushing the button would kill everyone, and couldn't be convinced?


As to the topic, I really can't say I have one rule that I'd follow in every situation.  I guess that means my morals are weak, but my decision wouldn't be perfectly logical.

[myrkul]

Even if everyone will die unless I cause one person to die, I would not do it.

O.o

I would not even hesitate to shoot that one person in your hypothetical scenario.

Well, it depends on the situation. If it were a black box, push the button, one random person dies, if not everyone dies, No, I'm not going to push that button. I will not become a murderer. On the other hand, if it was a man who had one of those magic black boxes that was going to kill everyone if he pushed it, I wouldn't hesitate to stop him, with lethal force if need be.

Hypothetically, would that change if he didn't know that pushing the button would kill everyone, and couldn't be convinced?


As to the topic, I really can't say I have one rule that I'd follow in every situation.  I guess that means my morals are weak, but my decision wouldn't be perfectly logical.

Nope. I wouldn't change my stance if he didn't know, and wouldn't believe me when I told him.

And don't feel bad about not having one rule for every situation. There can't be. Every situation is unique, and will need to be dealt with on its own terms.

[Topazan]

Even if everyone will die unless I cause one person to die, I would not do it.

O.o

I would not even hesitate to shoot that one person in your hypothetical scenario.

Well, it depends on the situation. If it were a black box, push the button, one random person dies, if not everyone dies, No, I'm not going to push that button. I will not become a murderer. On the other hand, if it was a man who had one of those magic black boxes that was going to kill everyone if he pushed it, I wouldn't hesitate to stop him, with lethal force if need be.

Hypothetically, would that change if he didn't know that pushing the button would kill everyone, and couldn't be convinced?


As to the topic, I really can't say I have one rule that I'd follow in every situation.  I guess that means my morals are weak, but my decision wouldn't be perfectly logical.

Nope. I wouldn't change my stance if he didn't know, and wouldn't believe me when I told him.

And don't feel bad about not having one rule for every situation. There can't be. Every situation is unique, and will need to be dealt with on its own terms.

Interesting, so what distinguishes him from the random person that you wouldn't kill?  He is the cause of death, but he may as well have been randomly selected to be the cause of death.

[myrkul]

On the other hand, if it was a man who had one of those magic black boxes that was going to kill everyone if he pushed it, I wouldn't hesitate to stop him, with lethal force if need be.

Hypothetically, would that change if he didn't know that pushing the button would kill everyone, and couldn't be convinced?

Nope. I wouldn't change my stance if he didn't know, and wouldn't believe me when I told him.

Interesting, so what distinguishes him from the random person that you wouldn't kill?  He is the cause of death, but he may as well have been randomly selected to be the cause of death.

Well, true, but I have told him that pushing his button will kill everyone. He doesn't believe me, and is going to push it anyway.

To put the same situation another way, A man is holding a revolver, pointed at me. By some trick of the light, I can see the copper of the bullet in the next chamber to be fired. (Having never had this unfortunate view, I'm only assuming this is even possible - run with it.) He thinks the gun is unloaded, I can see that it is not. He is going to pull the trigger anyway. He is going to kill me, even though he does not know it - or rather, refuses to acknowledge it. I would be justified in stopping him by any means necessary, up to and including lethal force, though obviously since he doesn't know he's going to kill me, killing him should be my last resort.

[Topazan]

What I had more in mind was that you are incapable of communicating the danger to him.  Perhaps he doesn't understand your language, or is too far away to hear you.  In addition, perhaps he believes it will do something good.  I suppose it comes down to how much he's responsible for the damage?

Another question I would ask everyone in this thread:  Does it change your position if the one person you have to kill to save everyone is yourself?

[NghtRppr]

Does it change your position if the one person you have to kill to save everyone is yourself?

It changes the moral nature of it. It's open for consideration at that point.

[myrkul]

What I had more in mind was that you are incapable of communicating the danger to him.  Perhaps he doesn't understand your language, or is too far away to hear you.  In addition, perhaps he believes it will do something good.  I suppose it comes down to how much he's responsible for the damage?

Another question I would ask everyone in this thread:  Does it change your position if the one person you have to kill to save everyone is yourself?

That does make it more agonizing, I will admit. But as I said, just like my friend with the revolver, I know that pushing that button will kill not just myself and him, but everyone else as well, the decision is clear, prevent him, even if it means he dies. Where this differs from just some random dude on the street dying is that, whether he knows it or not, the man with the button is responsible for killing everyone, while the random dude is not.

On the second point, Either way, I'm dead, but I value the continuation of human life, not just my own, so on the scales where everyone dies, or I die and everyone else lives, again, the choice is clear.

[Brunic]

Assume that the people and person are all randomly selected from the world population at large, ie. if you do nothing, X randomly selected people will die, and if you act one randomly selected person will die. There are no legal or social consequences to you personally.

The proposed choices are only if you, as a human being, accept the rules. I would instead try to understand the rules, to be able to fight them back, or bend them to my will. As an example, I could organise a study to understand how the random choice is made. If we know who's going to die, we can act better and maybe keep that person alive for a little longer.

Your problem is humanity struggle as we know it. Everyday, people are being killed for millions of reason. Sometimes, some people kill people to "save" lifes, but in the end, it doesn't solve any problem at all. Some people don't kill and stay "virtuous", but they become an easy target for those who kill to "save" lifes.

It's not about who's more utilitarian or more righteous, it's about who's able to adapt depending on the current situation. As long your goal is to understand that random killing machine, you can use whatever tools you find most useful. Trying to impose your thinking is stupid, because the other person could be in a position where your way of thinking is fatal.

[myrkul]

Assume that the people and person are all randomly selected from the world population at large, ie. if you do nothing, X randomly selected people will die, and if you act one randomly selected person will die. There are no legal or social consequences to you personally.

The proposed choices are only if you, as a human being, accept the rules. I would instead try to understand the rules, to be able to fight them back, or bend them to my will. As an example, I could organise a study to understand how the random choice is made. If we know who's going to die, we can act better and maybe keep that person alive for a little longer.

Your problem is humanity struggle as we know it. Everyday, people are being killed for millions of reason. Sometimes, some people kill people to "save" lifes, but in the end, it doesn't solve any problem at all. Some people don't kill and stay "virtuous", but they become an easy target for those who kill to "save" lifes.

It's not about who's more utilitarian or more righteous, it's about who's able to adapt depending on the current situation. As long your goal is to understand that random killing machine, you can use whatever tools you find most useful. Trying to impose your thinking is stupid, because the other person could be in a position where your way of thinking is fatal.

Seriously: Consider a career in politics. That's a lot of words to have said absolutely nothing.

[Brunic]

Assume that the people and person are all randomly selected from the world population at large, ie. if you do nothing, X randomly selected people will die, and if you act one randomly selected person will die. There are no legal or social consequences to you personally.

The proposed choices are only if you, as a human being, accept the rules. I would instead try to understand the rules, to be able to fight them back, or bend them to my will. As an example, I could organise a study to understand how the random choice is made. If we know who's going to die, we can act better and maybe keep that person alive for a little longer.

Your problem is humanity struggle as we know it. Everyday, people are being killed for millions of reason. Sometimes, some people kill people to "save" lifes, but in the end, it doesn't solve any problem at all. Some people don't kill and stay "virtuous", but they become an easy target for those who kill to "save" lifes.

It's not about who's more utilitarian or more righteous, it's about who's able to adapt depending on the current situation. As long your goal is to understand that random killing machine, you can use whatever tools you find most useful. Trying to impose your thinking is stupid, because the other person could be in a position where your way of thinking is fatal.

Seriously: Consider a career in politics. That's a lot of words to have said absolutely nothing.

Ok, I'll explain otherwise:
Big thing is killing people and offers you 2 choices.
-Option A
-Option B

You guys are debating which option is better.
I propose that we kill the big killing machine instead, whatever the cost is. In the meantime, use the choice that profits the most for you, keeping in mind that we want to kill the big killing machine.

[Kluge]

Assume that the people and person are all randomly selected from the world population at large, ie. if you do nothing, X randomly selected people will die, and if you act one randomly selected person will die. There are no legal or social consequences to you personally.

The proposed choices are only if you, as a human being, accept the rules. I would instead try to understand the rules, to be able to fight them back, or bend them to my will. As an example, I could organise a study to understand how the random choice is made. If we know who's going to die, we can act better and maybe keep that person alive for a little longer.

Your problem is humanity struggle as we know it. Everyday, people are being killed for millions of reason. Sometimes, some people kill people to "save" lifes, but in the end, it doesn't solve any problem at all. Some people don't kill and stay "virtuous", but they become an easy target for those who kill to "save" lifes.

It's not about who's more utilitarian or more righteous, it's about who's able to adapt depending on the current situation. As long your goal is to understand that random killing machine, you can use whatever tools you find most useful. Trying to impose your thinking is stupid, because the other person could be in a position where your way of thinking is fatal.

Seriously: Consider a career in politics. That's a lot of words to have said absolutely nothing.

Ok, I'll explain otherwise:
Big thing is killing people and offers you 2 choices.
-Option A
-Option B

You guys are debating which option is better.
I propose that we kill the big killing machine instead, whatever the cost is. In the meantime, use the choice that profits the most for you, keeping in mind that we want to kill the big killing machine.

So we should kill Vitalik Buterin? Seems extreme.

[myrkul]

Ok, I'll explain otherwise:
Big thing is killing people and offers you 2 choices.
-Option A
-Option B

You guys are debating which option is better.
I propose that we kill the big killing machine instead, whatever the cost is. In the meantime, use the choice that profits the most for you, keeping in mind that we want to kill the big killing machine.

The "big killing machine" has the capability of killing people with impunity. Option A is killing one person to save the rest, Option B is doing nothing, resulting in the deaths of those people. There is no C, trying to destroy the "big killing machine" has the exact same effect as B.

[ineededausername]

Assume that the people and person are all randomly selected from the world population at large, ie. if you do nothing, X randomly selected people will die, and if you act one randomly selected person will die. There are no legal or social consequences to you personally.

The proposed choices are only if you, as a human being, accept the rules. I would instead try to understand the rules, to be able to fight them back, or bend them to my will. As an example, I could organise a study to understand how the random choice is made. If we know who's going to die, we can act better and maybe keep that person alive for a little longer.

Your problem is humanity struggle as we know it. Everyday, people are being killed for millions of reason. Sometimes, some people kill people to "save" lifes, but in the end, it doesn't solve any problem at all. Some people don't kill and stay "virtuous", but they become an easy target for those who kill to "save" lifes.

It's not about who's more utilitarian or more righteous, it's about who's able to adapt depending on the current situation. As long your goal is to understand that random killing machine, you can use whatever tools you find most useful. Trying to impose your thinking is stupid, because the other person could be in a position where your way of thinking is fatal.

Seriously: Consider a career in politics. That's a lot of words to have said absolutely nothing.

Ok, I'll explain otherwise:
Big thing is killing people and offers you 2 choices.
-Option A
-Option B

You guys are debating which option is better.
I propose that we kill the big killing machine instead, whatever the cost is. In the meantime, use the choice that profits the most for you, keeping in mind that we want to kill the big killing machine.

This is a utilitarianism vs. rights/morality debate; you're subverting the whole point of the question with this argument.

[cbeast]

Ok, I'll explain otherwise:
Big thing is killing people and offers you 2 choices.
-Option A
-Option B

You guys are debating which option is better.
I propose that we kill the big killing machine instead, whatever the cost is. In the meantime, use the choice that profits the most for you, keeping in mind that we want to kill the big killing machine.

+1
I would only kill one. That is the person that created this game of death. If that is not possible, then I would let that person do whatever because they would not be trusted to do otherwise anyway. I don't believe in no-win scenarios, but death is not something I fear.

[Brunic]

Ok, I'll explain otherwise:
Big thing is killing people and offers you 2 choices.
-Option A
-Option B

You guys are debating which option is better.
I propose that we kill the big killing machine instead, whatever the cost is. In the meantime, use the choice that profits the most for you, keeping in mind that we want to kill the big killing machine.

The "big killing machine" has the capability of killing people with impunity. Option A is killing one person to save the rest, Option B is doing nothing, resulting in the deaths of those people. There is no C, trying to destroy the "big killing machine" has the exact same effect as B.

I know, because the machine is not stupid enough to give you that option on a silver plate. The "big killing machine" is happy that great intellectuals are fighting each other to find which option is better, so that it can continue to kill without being bothered. When a superior entity like the "big killing machine" has domination over a group, it prefers to make empty debate so the group can lose their time over it, than having this group use their time and knowledge to fight the "big killing machine".

This is a utilitarianism vs. rights/morality debate; you're subverting the whole point of the question with this argument.

Every debate has a context, you cannot just trash the context to analyze what pleases you. If I could give an example using the Allegory of the Cave, right now, you're debating over the shadows on the wall. Oh sure, you make big and long debates to determine if the utilitarianism shadow is better, or the right shadow is better. But I'm asking you, where these shadows come from? Why are you in a cave, looking at shadows in the first place?

Or using the context of the OP, why the fuck are you in a world where a "big killing machine" is killing random people in the first place? It's not about who is right in the debate, it's about winning against the machine.

My answer to this debate is, I'm ready to sacrifice all the lives we need to be able to win against the "big killing machine". In the meantime, it's important to keep enough humility to be able to switch on either side of the utilitarian/rights debate depending on the situation. The losers are the ones that are stuck on only one side, incapable of adapting their way of thinking if the situation change.

[Gareth Nelson]

In all situations:
To save myself or someone I loved i'd kill the entire human race

Only where i'd not be liable:
To save a random stranger who I don't know, i'd kill anyone who has themselves killed innocent people but nobody else




I believe this to be rational, if slightly sociopathic in some people's eyes