THE BOX

[bikes]

HELLO AND WELCOME FRIENDS.

I present you with this choice. You see this box above me? If you push the button you will receive $40 mils. Straight cash homey. However when you push the button someone you don't know will die due to you pushing the button. Also let's say all that bullshit that happens in the movie does not happen. Your kid won't end up deaf and blind, all that happens is someone will die.


Do you push the button?

[spoonitnow]

Snap yes. How is this even a question?

[wufwugy]

i'd consider hitting it if the person who dies is somebody i know

[boost]

I'm ashamed to say that it's not a snap no, but I do think it's a no.

[!Luck]

Can I press it more than once?

[BennyLaRue]

At any point in the world, 100% of the people are dying. Therefore, there's a 100% chance that the person you kill is dying anyway.

Snap yes. Conscience clear.

[bigred]

I'M GETTING A BOAT!

[JKDS]

Snap yes.

[NightGizmo]

I'm ashamed to say that it's not a snap no, but I do think it's a no.

I'd have to agree with this.

Also: The Button from Andy Bush

[JKDS]

Ill say this though. If i had to watch it, then no. Gotta keep that relationship impersonal. So long as its someone i cant observe, i press it.

Whats scary...is how little the offer could be...

[drmcboy]

hit it, save 2 hungry people, donate lavishly, benefit universe.

[givememyleg]

i'm going to say no, but not because i would feel guilty/sad/whatever with some random person somewhere dying, i'd likely feel nothing, but because god damn killing people isn't cool, yo. as with any hypothetical it's impossible to know for certain what you would do, but i think all of you snap yessing really aren't giving this much thought.

[Luco]

How much value can you put on living the rest of your life knowing you killed someone? Also, money is such a stupid thing to get excited about.

It's a definite no.

[BooG690]

Can I press it more than once?

This.

[Ash256]

HELLO AND WELCOME FRIENDS.

If you push this button $40m will be donated to the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative. This would protect millions of children from tropical disease. However one person would die.

Do you push the button?

[mbiz]

Chances are they were chinese anyway

[supa]

20yrs ago snap yes. Today, not so snappy no.

[Luco]

Chances are they were chinese anyway

I assume from your use of past tense that you pressed the button?

There's a chance they could be anyone. The only stipulation is that you don't know them. It could be a guy on death row who just had his last meal. It could also be a child who is dearly loved by their family. You'd likely never find out who you pushed the button on though.

[crazzvette]

It's all about the money , 40 million is alot and could be used for greatness . Unforturately it's could never be enough to have someone killed .
Would i do it ? NO NO NO ! ! !

[rpm]

it's a no for me

[eugmac]

Also consider, you might run bad and have it kill your mom, or something.

edit:
oh, I didn't read thoroughly enough. somebody I don't know... Bleh. whatever, this is all irrelevant.

Consider that most of the richest in the world are probably sociopaths would snap press the button, which is why they got where they are.

Saying that because everybody is dying anyway, it doesn't matter if you accellerate the process by willfully killing them... well how is that different from justifying premeditated murder?

I'm a 100% no.

[eugmac]

Compare this to a big red button for authorizing a massive nuclear strike that will insta-win you a war. You and your entire country will profit massively, but masses of people you don't know will instantly perish.

Is there any fundamental difference with my above scenario and the OP?

[Luco]

Compare this to a big red button for authorizing a massive nuclear strike that will insta-win you a war. You and your entire country will profit massively, but masses of people you don't know will instantly perish.

Is there any fundamental difference with my above scenario and the OP?

Yes.

The button in the OP is small, not big.

[BooG690]

Compare this to a big red button for authorizing a massive nuclear strike that will insta-win you a war. You and your entire country will profit massively, but masses of people you don't know will instantly perish.

Is there any fundamental difference with my above scenario and the OP?

That depends on the value you put on winning that war as opposed to the value of the lives of the people you've killed. Winning a war has almost zero value to me which means the value of that is less than the lives lost with my pushing of the button.

However, the mystery life that I take is definitely not worth $40 million to me. Snapkill.

[spidyberge]

Kill someone i don't know for money ?
My answer is no .

[BooG690]

Kill someone i don't know for money ?
My answer is no .

</thread>

[Alexos]

Answer: snap yes, then donate 20 million to save 100,000 starving African kids. Voila!

[OngBonga]

No.

[Luco]

What about if you press the button you get your $40mil, but someone you don't know dies AND you can never eat bacon ever again?

[Penneywize]

Consider that most of the richest in the world are probably sociopaths would snap press the button, which is why they got where they are.

Forget everything else about your post (I agree, I wouldn't press the button either and it is not a close decision) - looking at the above and.. I can't help but think you've got a pretty weird image built up in your head of what rich people are like. Do you think it's somehow an advantage to be a sociopath, to the point where a good proportion of rich people owe their success to having that kind of an affliction?

Anyway, I don't mean to rag on you man. I'm just kind of shocked you'd say something like that. I've heard of contempt for the rich before but to refer to them as being mostly sociopaths is... well, damn. I have always thought that most very rich people got to where they are in no small part due to their likeability and outgoing personalities. So strange that you'd sort of claim the opposite as the truth, sort of en passant as if there were nothing to be argued about there.

[drmcboy]

I am confused, why are the many lives you could save with 40M > than the one you take here?

[eugmac]

Penney,
True, "mostly" was certainly too large a proportion, I apologize for making it sound too generalized. I have no problem with sharing my opinion that a fairly notable proportion of the mega-rich, particularly in the pretty ill finance and banking sector, do have sociopathic traits.

Bill Gates is a good guy, on the other hand, from what I can see.

[d0zer]

Anyway, I don't mean to rag on you man. I'm just kind of shocked you'd say something like that. I've heard of contempt for the rich before but to refer to them as being mostly sociopaths is... well, damn. I have always thought that most very rich people got to where they are in no small part due to their likeability and outgoing personalities. So strange that you'd sort of claim the opposite as the truth, sort of en passant as if there were nothing to be argued about there.

While I don't believe that a majority of the wealthy are sociopaths, being likeable and outgoing and having a complete lack of empathy aren't mutually exclusive. Some people without empathy learn to fake it well enough to achieve their ends. I imagine that having no empathy and being likeable would be very beneficial in making money.

[Penneywize]

I don't disagree dozer, but I think if you consider the population of people with winning-type personalities, you'd find only a very small joint distribution of people who also lack empathy. It'd certainly be the exception and not the rule. As for whether lacking empathy and being kind and outgoing would be good traits for making money, this is a judgment call and our arguing about it wouldn't yield anything constructive; but it still seems unlikely that if we were to accept it as true, we could then conclude that the wealthy tend to be sociopaths.

@eug, I think it's pretty easy to hate these finance types, especially after what we've collectively been through the past 5 years or so. I also think however that we've been sort of indoctrinated culturally against these types of people; I don't need to point out the examples of fictionalized billionaire badguys to you.

But more importantly, I think people want to believe that wealthy people are in some way inherently bad. We are unable to relate to the very wealthy. They must be different from us. We hear news stories about Enron and Goldman Sachs and subconsciously generalize from there. It's a bit of a romantic thing to think that the only way to become wealthy is through greed and sociopathic tendencies. In some way, it justifies our own lack of wealth. Hey, we didn't get to be rich, but at least we weren't dicks to everyone.

It's just human nature man. But I consider myself an empiricist, I'm not going to blindly accept stereotypes, especially when shown evidence to the contrary.

[Penneywize]

Bill Gates is a good guy, on the other hand, from what I can see.

See this is sort of an example of what I'm talking about. You cite Bill Gates as being a good guy, though qualify it by saying "from what I can see", implying it may not be true.

Of course, there isn't anything wrong with saying that. But I highly doubt that if you had a comparable amount of (positive) information about another individual, say some scientist or musician or what have you, that in talking about their personality you would go out of your way to say "from what I can see". Essentially implying that they might be a sociopath, you just haven't seen anything to prove that yet.

[eugmac]

See this is sort of an example of what I'm talking about. You cite Bill Gates as being a good guy, though qualify it by saying "from what I can see", implying it may not be true.

Of course, there isn't anything wrong with saying that. But I highly doubt that if you had a comparable amount of (positive) information about another individual, say some scientist or musician or what have you, that in talking about their personality you would go out of your way to say "from what I can see". Essentially implying that they might be a sociopath, you just haven't seen anything to pro yet.

... ? What a bizarre picking of nits...

I do think Bill Gates not only through his foundation but through the technological achievements of Microsoft, that his contributions to society are positive-sum for sure. I would find it very hard to argue that somebody is a sociopath and is donating piles of money into initiatives to fight world hunger and so on, not out of genuine altruism, but as a front to hide his evil monster, or something seemingly absurd like that.

I add words like "as far as I can see" or "to the best of my knowledge" whenever I can't with a good conscience be an authority on any subject, be it judgment of human character, the best betting line in poker, how best to prepare a lasagne... I guess I shy away from making strong assertions - I question just about every damn thing I ever do or say. It can be a nuisance, but people close to me tell me that - perhaps as a result of this trait - I'm penetratingly thorough with anything I do.

[Pascal]

I'm penetratingly thorough with anything I do.

Spoiler: Show

Sorry!

[eugmac]

of course i put that in there to see what people might make out of it.

[Penneywize]

I guess I shy away from making strong assertions

Consider that most of the richest in the world are probably sociopaths would snap press the button, which is why they got where they are.

ya, dunno bout that.

Anyway sorry if you think I was reaching a bit with that example I pointed out rubbed you the wrong way, like I said it was just an example. I don't actually think that you thought that there is a serious possibility that Bill Gates is a sociotard.

You didn't mention anything from my other post, do you agree / disagree etc

[MadMojoMonkey]

... ? What a bizarre picking of nits...

+1 (for phrase, not context... I find this discussion quite interesting)

It is not enough to make "safe" investments to become rich. To become rich, one must be an undaunted risk taker. To become rich, one must do many things well, and find the one thing he/she can do stupendously well, and take the risk to do it. One must disregard all the nay-sayers and invest in others who serve to build his/her vision.

These qualities can easily be confused for sociopathic tendencies, and it's easy to point a finger someone who you acknowledge as "different" than yourself (they're rich, you're not; etc.).

The diagnosis of a sociopath is a daunting task, even for psychiatrists who specialize in sociopathy. Every one of us exhibits some sociopathic traits, from time to time. No one exhibits all sociopathic traits all the time.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

I'd press the button, then donate 39 million to save several other peoples lives. Boom!

[Jack Sawyer]

Where's the pole

On to the question: no.

[BooG690]

I am confused, why are the many lives you could save with 40M > than the one you take here?

Simply due to the quantity of lives.

[Pascal]

I am confused, why are the many lives you could save with 40M > than the one you take here?

You can press one of two buttons, one kills 1 person and the other kills 20 people. Which one do you press?

[JKDS]

For those saying no, how much does it have to be?

Would you need an assurance that the button kills someone that has a net negative effect on society or worse?

[bikes]

You can press one of two buttons, one kills 1 person and the other kills 20 people. Which one do you press?

20 obv.

kill 1 man it is a tragedy, kill 20 and it is a statistic

[chemist]

You can press one of two buttons, one kills 1 person and the other kills 20 people. Which one do you press?

20 obv.

kill 1 man it is a tragedy, kill 20 and it is a statistic

Started a new thread for that discussion, Removing the personal gain, but requiring a conscious decision to kill, or ignore an ability to save.
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...ml#post2110091

So that this thread can continue to focus on the money.

[Alexos]

Answer: snap yes, then donate 20 million to save 100,000 starving African kids. Voila!

I'd press the button, then donate 39 million to save several other peoples lives. Boom!

Great minds think alike. Some are just more greedy than others

[BennyLaRue]

Saying that because everybody is dying anyway, it doesn't matter if you accellerate the process by willfully killing them... well how is that different from justifying premeditated murder?

It isn't. What's your point? Some people you need to think about first. Some people it's just so painfully necessary that there's no pre required and everyone applauds.

[chemist]

It sounds to me like the joke about the man asking a woman whether she would sleep with him for a hundred bucks.
After she asks what kind of a woman he mistakes her for he ups the ante to an amount she can't refuse.
But after she has reluctantly agreed that there might be a price for which she would consider it.
He then concludes: "So now we have established what you are, let's negotiate the price".

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Great minds think alike. Some are just more greedy than others

fwiw I was about to type 35 mill and then hammed it up a bit.

[eugmac]

For all those who said they would donate the money to do enough good to make up for the one guaranteed lost life - what's to say that the owner of the $40 million wouldn't have done the same should you not accept the money? The chances that he will do good for society (maybe because his faith in it is restored by you saying no) with the $40 mill is non-zero, and nobody needs to be purposely killed.

[d0zer]

Not to mention that throwing money at problems often doesn't turn out as intended.

[Penneywize]

For all those who said they would donate the money to do enough good to make up for the one guaranteed lost life - what's to say that the owner of the $40 million wouldn't have done the same should you not accept the money? The chances that he will do good for society (maybe because his faith in it is restored by you saying no) with the $40 mill is non-zero, and nobody needs to be purposely killed.

Not to mention that throwing money at problems often doesn't turn out as intended.

Pretty much this. Dozer's got a good point about throwing money at problems, particularly in the area of say poor / developing nations. There are some interesting econ models out there that show that lump sum transfers of money to developing nations have no effect in the long run.

As for what eug said - I agree completely, and this is why I hate the other thread "Box Two", because it implies that not killing the person and taking the money is tantamount to killing twenty people. Logic fail, obv.

I think what it boils down to is this:
Is it morally justifiable for someone to take the life of another under the uncertain pretense of being able to save the lives of others?

It'd be hard to imagine any case where I'd say 'yes' to that question.

[!Luck]

Pretty much this. Dozer's got a good point about throwing money at problems, particularly in the area of say poor / developing nations. There are some interesting econ models out there that show that lump sum transfers of money to developing nations have no effect in the long run.

As for what eug said - I agree completely, and this is why I hate the other thread "Box Two", because it implies that not killing the person and taking the money is tantamount to killing twenty people. Logic fail, obv.

I think what it boils down to is this:
Is it morally justifiable for someone to take the life of another under the uncertain pretense of being able to save the lives of others?

It'd be hard to imagine any case where I'd say 'yes' to that question.

Guess you don't care about your family.....

[a500lbgorilla]

Push the button.

A. A human life is not worth 40 mil, so the world as a whole is wealthier for your decision. Think of the jobs you could create.
B. That person was going to die anyway. Was probably on his deathbed already. And now has been freed of every worldly concern.

ez game

[Alexos]

For all those who said they would donate the money to do enough good to make up for the one guaranteed lost life - what's to say that the owner of the $40 million wouldn't have done the same should you not accept the money? The chances that he will do good for society (maybe because his faith in it is restored by you saying no) with the $40 mill is non-zero, and nobody needs to be purposely killed.

you're taking this too far, there is no "owner" of the 40 mil, this is all hypothetical!! We're assuming the 40mil is created out of nowhere and doesn't even affect the money supply. It's a secret between you, the button, and the dead person.

And 40 million would save thousands of life, no doubt about that.

[Penneywize]

And 40 million would save thousands of life, no doubt about that.

As an economist, I don't think it's a certain thing that even one life would be saved with that money.

People have been largely ignoring my arguments in the last 2 threads so I won't expand on this unless I'm asked to (not holding my breath tho lol).

@!luck don't be silly, I care about my family bra. I'm doing my best not to speak in definites and certainties here, but manipulating the question into the worst possible scenario (i.e. I either kill the one unknown person and pay someone 40 mil not to kill my family, for instance) will obviously make my argument seem unimportant.

[supa]

For all those who said they would donate the money to do enough good to make up for the one guaranteed lost life - what's to say that the owner of the $40 million wouldn't have done the same should you not accept the money? The chances that he will do good for society (maybe because his faith in it is restored by you saying no) with the $40 mill is non-zero, and nobody needs to be purposely killed.

Nah, a guy who puts up the money with the knowledge he'll be having someone killed isn't gonna snap have his faith restored. Plus he knows there's a chance someone would say no.

[bikes]

kill them all. let fate sort out the rest

[JKDS]

Certainly money can save people. Many die every day because they dont have the basic needs required for survival. May that be food, health, safety, etc.

But no. Id probably be incredibly selfish. I think...its because im a narcissist.

[Penneywize]

Certainly money can save people. Many die every day because they dont have the basic needs required for survival. May that be food, health, safety, etc.

Paying for their food, health needs and shelter likely would only delay their death, unless you plan on supporting these people throughout their life.

[Penneywize]

TIL money is a superhero that can save people's lives.





Edit: I heard a version of this that involved pressing a spacebar on your computer, where some random person would die, and you would win 1000$ for every time you pressed it. It could in no way be traced back to you, but you would be made aware of the people you killed.

Would you press it, and how many times? :O

[JKDS]

40million could do that though. People were saying that about 1million for themselves in that 1mill or 100mil thread

[Penneywize]

40million could do that though. People were saying that about 1million for themselves in that 1mill or 100mil thread

Ya maybe. I mean people in africa live on cents a day, so you could technically "save" their lives by depositing 10k or whatever in their banks released in intervals and have them set for like 50 years. Whether that is actually saving one's life is arguable though.

What if you murder 1 person, then save the lives of like 9 or 10 other people. You're still tried for murder, right? 10 good deeds don't take away the fact that someone died because of you. That's why I feel this is a moral question more than anything.

[surviva316]

What if you murder 1 person, then save the lives of like 9 or 10 other people. You're still tried for murder, right? 10 good deeds don't take away the fact that someone died because of you. That's why I feel this is a moral question more than anything.

I disagree with a lot of your views of causality throughout this thread, but that is more so just opinion. I do think the comparison you make in this quote is just flat out wrong, though. The actual murder itself would have to be the cause of saving 9 or 10 lives for it to be a comparable situation.

Also, whether or not someone should be jailed for doing on action or another is irrelevant to whether or not it is moral for someone to take that action.

Also:

Is it morally justifiable for someone to take the life of another under the uncertain pretense of being able to save the lives of others?

Are you a complete pacifist? If you are, that's cool, but if you believe that war is justifiable, then what better justification could possibly exist than the pretense that it will save the lives of others?

[Penneywize]

The actual murder itself would have to be the cause of saving 9 or 10 lives for it to be a comparable situation.

I'm not sure about that; the scenario we're presented with is pressing a button to receive money. The use of that money has some possibility of 'saving lives'. So you are "killing" one person and then later "saving" others. Conversely, is it right to kill a rich person and use his money to feed starving children? I know, it's a stretch, but take a look at what is being proposed and advocated by many in this thread.

Also, whether or not someone should be jailed for doing on action or another is irrelevant to whether or not it is moral for someone to take that action.

Maybe, but it's debatable.

Are you a complete pacifist? If you are, that's cool, but if you believe that war is justifiable, then what better justification could possibly exist than the pretense that it will save the lives of others?

Not at all - I actually work in national defence. I just can't really equate the given situation with the concept of war. There are so many other elements in play; power, dominion, sovereignty, way of life. This can't reasonably be compared to what we're looking at here, in my opinion.

[CoccoBill]

I can't help but think you've got a pretty weird image built up in your head of what rich people are like. Do you think it's somehow an advantage to be a sociopath, to the point where a good proportion of rich people owe their success to having that kind of an affliction?

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...-the-rich.html

[jackvance]

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...-the-rich.html

Good read.

[supa]

TIL money is a superhero that can save people's lives.





Edit: I heard a version of this that involved pressing a spacebar on your computer, where some random person would die, and you would win 1000$ for every time you pressed it. It could in no way be traced back to you, but you would be made aware of the people you killed.

Would you press it, and how many times? :O

.

[jyms]

^^^^^^ times few more depending on how I start to feel

[rong]

Good read.

.

[surviva316]

I'm not sure about that; the scenario we're presented with is pressing a button to receive money. The use of that money has some possibility of 'saving lives'. So you are "killing" one person and then later "saving" others.

The important thing is that there is a causal relationship between the two. I know that you think that this relationship is too tenuous for it to justify the murder for you, but that's a different discussion (the one you've been having in most of the rest of the thread). Once you prove that the relationship is too tenuous, then you can make this comparison to lock down the argument, but everyone on the other side of the aisle still disagrees with you on that point, so that's the focus at the moment.

Conversely, is it right to kill a rich person and use his money to feed starving children? I know, it's a stretch, but take a look at what is being proposed and advocated by many in this thread.

This is the comparison that I don't think is a stretch at all. This is the exact same thing, imo. The only fact that this is different is that there might be a hazier connection between you and the murder itself if you're pressing a button rather than shooting someone in the face.

But based on my other responses in this thread, you might guess I don't care about this consideration of what feels like it's more direct than what. All actions that result in a 100% probability of someone dying (who had a normalized goodness/expected longevity remain/etc) are equal on a sociatal-scale. There might be a difference on an individual scale because of PTSD type stuff, but anyway.

Maybe, but it's debatable.

Irrelevant's the wrong word, but it's insufficient to prove anything. We'd have to get into that debate in a different thread because it's its own can of worms.

Not at all - I actually work in national defence. I just can't really equate the given situation with the concept of war. There are so many other elements in play; power, dominion, sovereignty, way of life. This can't reasonably be compared to what we're looking at here, in my opinion.

I'm not sure that those other elements in play (which are all basically just quality of life considerations) are better justifications for taking life than saving lives themselves. Or even that saving some life+causing some freedom in some other lives+improving the way of life of some other lives can be better than just saving a shit ton of lives. In other words, if you save 1,000 lives, make for a free lifestyle for 10 milli people and improve the lifestyle of 100 milli people, I can't possibly see an argument that says that it isn't better to save the lives of 110,001,000 people.

Basically, it might result in several good things, but we're still talking about saving lives plus some other things that are no more valuable than saving lives. So you might argue that the war saves (or improves the lives of) 100 million people, so it's worth killing x because you save SO MANY PEOPLE. So then we've established that you have a price.*

So what's your price? 2 lives saved for every 1 life taken? 10:1? 1,000:1? Etc.

*I of course am under the assumption that I don't have to argue that war's causal relationship with those potential results you listed isn't any more direct than in this scenario. Shooting a German soldier in the 40s gives an incremental (VERY small) increase in the chance that your side wins the war, which means that your side can get Germany to shut down concentration camps, which will inevitably save a ton of lives. I don't see how this is any more direct than buying a life-time supply of food for someone who would otherwise die of starvation.

[Icanhastreebet]

Paying for their food, health needs and shelter likely would only delay their death, unless you plan on supporting these people throughout their life.

By not pushing the button we are just delaying this person's death. I mean the way you are speaking all these poor people are fucked anyway. Considering most of the world is made of up poor people then we should be pushing the button??? I mean we start a program where we help family's adopt kids from these countries and BAM now they are saved. That is unless you still say this is just delaying there death which is what we do anyway when we don't push the button.

I mean basically we are so fucking insignificant I don't know why so many of you care about 1 life. If the whole planet exploded tomorrow it would mean absolutely NOTHING to the rest of the universe so how does one life mean anything? Okay so gaining 40 million$ means nothing either but the good you could do is going to be > that one life. I mean there might even be some people in first world countries who would give up their life if they knew it would do a lot of good. I'm assuming most people in poor countries would give up their life if there was some chance it would save their friends or people in a similar situation as them so then why aren't we pushing the button?

I'm assuming the money is coming from no where. If we were taking it from another person then it might not be worth because they can probably handle it better.

Also how do we know if we don't push the button that they might make the next guy the exact same offer?

edit: After thinking about it in the shower and feeling sick about it I don't think I could do it. I still think my argument is valid for someone who wants to do it though.

[eugmac]

If the money is coming from nowhere, it means you've inflated the money supply, effectively making everybody poorer. Way to go, murderers.