Don't push it. It gives you longer to think of a way to stop it, also with the chance of him bluffing, not pushing is definitely the best choice because it buys you more time for something to happen to stop it.
On August 27 2008 09:05 Hurricane wrote: Don't push it. It gives you longer to think of a way to stop it, also with the chance of him bluffing, not pushing is definitely the best choice because it buys you more time for something to happen to stop it.
I agree with what you're saying, but the problem becomes more complicated since there are so many unknown variables. Assuming that the man is as dangerous as he seems, he's most likely capable of pulling something within the one hour, so you might not have as long a time as you think. Plus, there are always the bizzare possibilities such as there's a certain timing to when to push the button to limit casualties. I don't know though, I might be missing something within the information presented, but that's all I can immediately come up with.
I think the difference between 2001 and 2000 is small enough (very harsh, I know) that I could better live with myself if 2001 deaths were caused by my inaction than if 2000 deaths were caused by an action I made when I had a choice not to. This is all, of course, assuming that there is no way to cheat the system. However, given different numbers/situations, I could see myself changing my mind.
Well, when I first read it, it sounded like a threat (IF YOU DON"T PRESS IT YOU"LL DIE TOO, hence the 2001). But, if that isn't the case, I'd wait, and then I'd not press it at the chance that he's bluffing.
A. Flip a coin. Best of three. If you don't have a coin, flip the button. If it presses itself when it lands, then awesome. B. Complain of a faulty button and ask to contact his manager. C. Masturbate. D. All of the above.
This is what the SAT's trained you for, choose wisely.
push the button, so i can save one person at least, otherwise they are all dead? what kind of question is this? lol, unless there's like a way to persuade the guy in an hour to free everybody yay!
On August 27 2008 09:05 Hurricane wrote: Don't push it. It gives you longer to think of a way to stop it, also with the chance of him bluffing, not pushing is definitely the best choice because it buys you more time for something to happen to stop it.
That's true. If there's even a tiny chance he's bluffing/has a heart attack/you all get saved or whatever, you've got a higher EV. Either way, if you choose to push the button, don't do it until the last possible moment to maximize the chance that something interferes.
But I assume the intent of the question is to ask "would you kill 2000 people to save 2001 people?" As if you should carry some heavy burden for pressing the button. In that respect, my answer is press the button, easy.
i feel like this question has such an obvious answer, unless you specify something like that theres a gun on the floor that can be picked up within 5ft or w/e.
I'm going to make the assumption that this room is underground, thick concrete walls, a door locked form the outside and absolutely no way to escape.. I would think about it.. alot....
I wouldn't press the button until the time is nearly up. Assuming the police are onto this I would stall for as long as possible and then probably press the button. If you think of it either way ur killing atleast 2000 people. If you don't press it 2001 will die due to your stubbornness and weak conscious, if you push it, 2000 people will die that were inevitably going to die anyway.
On August 27 2008 10:01 freedom yay wrote: I'm going to make the assumption that this room is underground, thick concrete walls, a door locked form the outside and absolutely no way to escape.. I would think about it.. alot....
I wouldn't press the button until the time is nearly up. Assuming the police are onto this I would stall for as long as possible and then probably press the button. If you think of it either way ur killing atleast 2000 people. If you don't press it 2001 will die due to your stubbornness and weak conscious, if you push it, 2000 people will die that were inevitably going to die anyway.
push the button, so i can save one person at least, otherwise they are all dead? what kind of question is this? lol, unless there's like a way to persuade the guy in an hour to free everybody
But I assume the intent of the question is to ask "would you kill 2000 people to save 2001 people?" As if you should carry some heavy burden for pressing the button. In that respect, my answer is press the button, easy.
you all make too many assumptions. We don't know how many people in total are in the room, we don't know if the 2001st person is yourself or not. We don't know whether there are only 2k people in the room and #2001 is yourself, if there are 2001 people in the room and you could potentially save 1 of them, if there are 2000 people in the room and by pressing the button you save yourself, or if there are far more people in the room that would bear witness to you murdering 2000 people by your action or 2001 by your inaction. It's too vague to come to conclusions like those that are quoted.
From what we are given in the OP all we know is either 2000 or 2001 people *will* die whether you act or not. The question being asked is what value does one human life (regardless of whose it is) hold for you?
BTW my decision is to press it. Either way 2000 people are fucked, and you might as well do your best to save one (even if human beings for the most part don't derserve it) And strictly speaking, refusing to press the button is an act in itself, so yes you kill people either way in my view...better it be 2000 than one more.
If this was in a movie the "one" person would be you. So upon pressing the button the madman would let you go and have a talk about human self preservation since he knew you where hoping that one person was yourself. Then in a public announcement he would reveal that he had kidnapped the families of 800 special forces commando's and would show you mercilessly pressing the button which makes them go boom!
Then you true fight for survival against 800 pissed off special forces commandos begins.
Either that or the person you save is 95 or something.
Press the button and think about Schrödinger's cat's experiment. That way you'd think the people in the warehouse are all in a limbo state between death and living thus you don't have to feel guilty about killing them.
On August 27 2008 11:05 GoldenSun wrote: Press the button and think about Schrödinger's cat's experiment. That way you'd think the people in the warehouse are all in a limbo state between death and living thus you don't have to feel guilty about killing them.
This reminds me of the scene in dark knight with the two boats...I would either not do anything, or whip out my invisible snes controller and micro battle him to the death.
On August 27 2008 12:14 TeNken.1 wrote: This reminds me of the scene in dark knight with the two boats...I would either not do anything, or whip out my invisible snes controller and micro battle him to the death.
Yeah I immediately thought of this and half-assumed this blog was inspired by that scene. However, it's very difficult to say what you would do in that situation.
When I first read it, I thought to push the button. I had read it to mean that the 2000 people were a subset of the 2001 people, so if I pressed the button, then one of the 2001 would be saved. If the 2000 people are different from the 2001, then I don't think I'd be able to press the button, knowing that I had chosen to kill some people who weren't going to be killed if I didn't do anything.
Assuming no other outcomes than what this person proposes, push the goddamn button. Fuck all this inaction and action bullshit - you are controlling the outcome, and inaction is a choice too.
Then again, fuck this kind of hypothetical situation - there's always another way. "Die trying" is always available.