Morality thought experiment 1: The Death Toggle

[Beleth]

I am going to try to come up with these on a semi-regular basis. Here's the first one.

It's 4:45 PM on August 2. You are driving on a deserted stretch of highway in New Mexico when you run out of gas, and your cell phone isn't working. Fortunately, you know that you have a spare, but empty, gas can, and that you passed a gas station five miles back. So you get out of the car, get the can, and start walking back.

At 4:55 PM you come across a strange red toggle switch, and a sign above the switch which reads:


WARNING

If this switch is not moved to the DOWN position by 5:00 PM on August 2, poisonous vapors will flood the nearby town of X.

If it is moved to the DOWN position, poisonous vapors will flood the nearby town of Y, and a snapshot of the person moving the switch will be sent to the editors of the Albuquerque Tribune.


You know nobody in either X or Y, but you do know that X has a population of 1,000,000 people, and Y has a population of 900,000.

In other words, by flipping the switch, you save the lives of a net 100,000 people, but you run the risk of being known as the person who killed everyone in Y.

Do you flip the switch?

[jj]

That reminds me of a little town in Iowa. It was located such that it was the center of the earth. It was a nice town, perhaps nicer because of a big switch lever in the middle of town, with flaming red letters (they didn't burn the handle, nor did they hurt to touch, so they were obviously supernatural) that said "flip to end all human life, please use in case of emergency only". Obviously, we're here so the switch hasn't been flipped.

The town, of course, being Iowans, was entirely responsible, and built a little gazebo around it, with a rope to keep people away unless they wanted to get close, and they acted responsible.

There was, however, one nasty accident. Nathan, the town drunk, was staggering home one night, and stepped out into the road next to the switch, forcing a motorist to decide between hitting the switch (and flipping it), and killing poor Nathan.

The motorist, as we can all tell, chose to run over Nathan. He would have been acquitted, given the circumstances, except for his excuse when asked to plead to manslaughter, which was, of course:












Better Nate than lever!

[Martin]

Originally posted by jj
Better Nate than lever! You complete and utter b*stard :p

[BobK]

I voted no.

It seems to me the person who put the sign up knows what the situation is and is likely to know people in one or both towns. If they didn't bother to throw the switch, why should I? They evidently know the area better than I.

I'm curious whether anyone would change their vote from yes to no if it involved only 10 deaths versus 9 deaths?;)

[FireGarden]

Moral dilemma polls, what an interesting idea.... :)

I voted yes, and I think I would do so even if it saved only one life.

But supposing you knew someone in town Y? Or had family there.
Would saving 100,000 lives become less easy?

In that situation I would change my mind if it was 10 deaths versus 9 deaths. Family counts for a bit extra.

But the original proportions, saving 100,000 lives, is very difficult to answer.

And only 5 minutes to make the decision!!

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by BobK
I voted no.

It seems to me the person who put the sign up knows what the situation is and is likely to know people in one or both towns. If they didn't bother to throw the switch, why should I? They evidently know the area better than I.

I'm curious whether anyone would change their vote from yes to no if it involved only 10 deaths versus 9 deaths?;)

Thats a good question. Its very hard to morally impartial. Would you rather help your own child out of a fire rather than 10 other children you would have never known (family vs. moral obligation). Your question implies whether morality is swayed by "Net worth vs. Proportion".

Usually its hard to make moral decisions when proportionally, the trajedy is the same. Personally, I'd rather hurt 1 person in 10 rather than 100,000 in 1,000,000.

For the record, I voted "pull the switch". Although thinking about it, I dont know how the morality plays out. Am I morally obligated to save 100,000 people by killing 900,000 or do I let 1,000,000 people die (thats a very common morality question).

Edited to correct bad math and numbers and stuff...

[volant]

I voted for "No! It's not my fault that this sadistic device was built." Why was this machine built? And who built it?

[BobK]

I suppose you could always pray to your god to help you solve the dilemma, flip a coin, and with full confidence take the action determined by the coin flip.:rolleyes:

[Reb]

I abstained from the poll - I would put the toggle in the middle position, so neither town would be affected...

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Beleth

Do you flip the switch?

Nope, not likely. For one thing, I would think it was a hoax. For another, I'd still think it was a hoax!:eek:

[calladus]

Originally posted by Beleth
Do you flip the switch?
As a true geek, I would have to say that I would probably attempt to take apart the switch to understand how it works, and end up killing the population of BOTH towns in my 'AHA' moment!

I think this is why ethics classes are mandatory for engineering students!

[FireGarden]

Originally posted by Ruby


Nope, not likely. For one thing, I would think it was a hoax. For another, I'd still think it was a hoax!:eek:

If it's a hoax, then you can flip the switch and nothing will happen.

Of course, the message could be a lie and nothing will happen unless you flip the switch. But if someone wanted to kill town Y then they could have done so without depending on a stranger to flip a switch that they might not have seen.

[FireGarden]

Yahweh
Usually its hard to make moral decisions when proportionally, the trajedy is the same. Personally, I'd rather hurt 1 person in 10 rather than 10,000 in 1,000,000.
Is this a mathematical/typing error or are you saying you would rather hurt 1 person than hurt 10,000 people (regardless of the overall population)?

The second seems like a rather obvious choice.

10,000 in 1,000,000 is 1 in 100

[KevG]

Here's the problem I have with the walking away option. Why should I trust the people who place the device? Isn't it just as likely that my picture is going to be sent to the Albquerque Times if I walk away as if I don't? If I'm close enough to read the sign, they've got my picture. Since pulling the lever is the easier position to defend, that's what I would do.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda


If it's a hoax, then you can flip the switch and nothing will happen.

No Way, It coul be some sort of bad taste joke.
When you flip the switch you get CO2 in your face or something like that.
And then some dude say:
You are on TV!!

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda
Yahweh

Is this a mathematical/typing error or are you saying you would rather hurt 1 person than hurt 10,000 people (regardless of the overall population)?

The second seems like a rather obvious choice.

10,000 in 1,000,000 is 1 in 100
Uhhh... SHUT UP! THATS WHY!

(Me and numbers dont get along...)

[Yahzi]

I voted yes. I thought about it, and asked myself, what would I want someone else to do in that situation?

As the situation is written, a person has a chance to save 100,000 people from dying. So he does. What other choice could you possibly make?

[gnome]

I think that the question is stated poorly--there is little reason to trust the information given to you. The evil mastermind behind this could destroy any towns he wanted, obviously, with or without your help.... it's clear the test was designed to mess with your head... and so all bets are off.

Perhaps a better way of phrasing the dilemma would be to ask:

If you knew that disaster loomed for City X, and that by pulling a lever you could redirect that disaster to City Y, what would you do?

In this case I probably would pull the lever, and happily stand up to defend my action.

[Boo]

OK, I live in New Mexico.......Please somebody flip the switch. It's either bye-bye Albuquerque or bye-bye Santa Fe (the state capitol). I suppose it could be Las Cruces also. Doesn't really matter.


Ethics and morals, I don't need no stinkin' ethics or morals. I LIVE here!


Boo

:wink8:

[ceptimus]

Hmmm, this gas station I'm walking towards - is it nearer to town X or Y? I don't want to flood the gas station with poison - I might be stranded here all day.

Once I know that, I can set/leave the switch to the best position for me, and I'll hold the gas can in front of my face to foil the snapshot camera if necessary,

[evildave]

If you don't know what a switch is really for, don't ever touch it.

It's a simple rule. Common sense. Don't touch switches on airplanes. Don't touch switches on submarines. Don't touch mystery "doomsday" switches in the middle of the desert.

It could be "August 2, 2002" for all I know, and the machine's doomsday timer is busted, and throwing the switch will potentially kill 900,000 people who didn't have to die. Or (sensibly) someone built a doomsday switch that blows up when someone pulls it.

Report it to the police when you get to a phone. Fortunately those solar powered emergency phones are everywhere.

Anyway, once we're up to hundreds of thousands of people, it's hard to say which city will have more people in it at any given time. A city with 900,000 people living in it might have 1,200,000 people in it at 5:00pm, since it has a lot of office and retail space that people commute to and/or visit. Maybe an event like a baseball game or a fair has started that has tipped the balance the wrong way.

In any event, even if the switch is "real", and you managed to "save" 100,000 lives (which is an awfully difficult thing to prove in court) it will be YOUR responsibility that the other 900,000 people died when you throw that switch.

Added:
"Poison Gas" is an awfully tricky thing to use right, anyway. First, you need a HUGE quantity of it. Second, it doesn't disperse evenly. A little wind, and it all blows away. There will generally be time between the gas releasing and people falling victim to it. Straight forward measures, such as walking inside and closing the doors/windows (and in New Mexico, a LOT of people are in air conditioned buildings) will save most people.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

No.

Let's take the sign at face value,for the sake of argument.Either I shall be responsible for many deaths or someone else will be responsible for many more.

[evildave]

Possibly not. As I pointed out, it is only your assumptions at work that say there are more people actually present, right now in one city or the other. There is "only" a 10% difference in base populations. According to how long ago it was that you last checked, and the accuracy of the information when you checked it (let alone how well you remember), the smaller of the two cities may even have a base population greater than the larger.

Anyway, the eventual "truth" of the matter is inaccessible, and thus irrelevant at decision time. Even if someone has miraculously transported and stored millions of gallons of toxins (what it would take to kill a whole sprawling U.S. city with any degree of certainty) in tanks all around two cities, and rigged it to respond to this switch (in some wireless fashion, no doubt), and managed not to get caught at it, you don't know whether it's real or a prank, and don't even know for sure which switch position is better or worse.

The guideline still applies.

Leave unknown switches alone.

[evildave]

Then again, perhaps this is a "false dillemma".

Put the switch in the "middle" position. Maybe neither city "gets it".

[crocodile deathroll]

It maybe just a sick practical joke, and when you turn the switch you are the only one that gets it.

[abiogenesis]

This situation is precisely the reason that, when walking five miles to a gas station in the middle of New Mexico, I keep my head down and stare at my shoes. Too many freaky things going on in New Mexico. It's just better not to get involved. Hey, I didn't see any lever!

Perhaps this is a good argument for the push to hydrogen fuel? If you hadn't run out of gas in the first place...

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[neutrino_cannon]

hmmmm... Now, Do I have any knowledge of the current weather patterns in X and Y? As evildave points out, poison gases (such a chlorine) ride the winds. If there is a good wind in either X or Y I can reasonably assume significantly reduced casualties. Now, if we're talking particulate chemical agents, such as mustard "gas", then that's a different story. It's really little droplets of agent, still dispersing on the wind, but not to the point were a good gust could lessen or eliminate casualties.

What happens if I flip it both ways? Can I kill both populations then? The switch is described as a toggle, does that mean it's in one of the positions to begin with? If there are any ways to kill both or niether populations, that would influence my decision.

As it stands, with only two choices, I'll kill as few people as possible. Frankly I don't care what they think of me in New Mexico, or anywhere else. The point is they still can think. :)

[evildave]

Even for something like a nerve agent that kills with the tiniest drop... it would take a phenomenal amount of it to wipe out a city of 900,000 or even 1,000,000.

Given typical Generican (Generic American) Urban Sprawl, you'd need to cover 2500 ~ 5000 square miles of real estate with the chemical just to manage contaminating the whole city. That's not actually REACHING anyone inside, or accounting for terrain difficulties. Plus you'd need enough excess agent to manage weather.

It's one of the reason I laughed in people's faces when they said they were worried about "terrorist" chemical agent strikes and bought plastic and masking tape. Especially way out here in the foothills. At least they can use the stuff for painting.

A subway. An airport. Some enclosed area with poor ventalation is a chemical target. Not a whole city.

[Skeptical Greg]

All I can say for sure, is that it is immoral to give someone the choice of killing 1,000,000 or 900,000.

[FireGarden]

Edave
It's a simple rule. Common sense. Don't touch switches on airplanes.
I was on an airplane.
There was this button on the armrest of the chair, with a picture of a lightbulb nearby. I thought it might turn the reading light on.

I pressed it.....

You'll never guess what happened.....

[7th sextile]

Have to go with Ruby's option for several reasons-

(Perhaps Boo can back me up on these:)

*The instructions mention"the nearby town of"
There are no nearby towns in New Mexico

*There are no towns with pops of 1,000,000 or 900,000 in NM.

.

*There are no towns named 'X' or 'Y' in NM.

Now if the evil workaholic had said 'Tarzana' or 'Truth or Consequences'........................

[ebola]

The problem I have with this is that you do not have the option to save 100,000 lives. You are simply given the choice between killing 900,000 people and killing 1,000,000 people. As Evildave pointed out, perhaps there are circumstances where the population shifts due to commuting or special events, so you can't even rely on these numbers as to how many people you are choosing to kill.

In addition you don't know which people you are killing. Perhaps you might be saving 1,000,000 village idiots who sit around and dream up unrealistic and ethically unsolvable moral dilemmas while condemning 900,000 engineers, astro-phycisists, and microbiologists who are rapidly improving the actual quality of human life.

Would the knowledge that a modern day Einstein is in one of the towns affect your choice? Could you live with the knowledge that you deprived humanity of the modern equivalent of General and Special Relativity to avoid killing 100,000 people? How many lives would a modern day Einstein be worth?

Leave the lever where it is, and go and get your gasoline.

Eric

[Ruby]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda


If it's a hoax, then you can flip the switch and nothing will happen.



Not me!:eek: I might think it a hoax, but I would not trust it enough to flip it. Who knows what little nasty joke would be played on me for flipping it. I'd just walk away.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

No Way, It coul be some sort of bad taste joke.
When you flip the switch you get CO2 in your face or something like that.
And then some dude say:
You are on TV!!

Exactly!!!!:eek:

[Boo]

7th,

Ummmmm, I live in Truth or Consequenses.


Off topic, true story.......

Responded to a possible suicide one morning at a hotel in town. The individual had been on a 5 day alcoholic black out and decided that suicide was the only option. After a conversation and the decision made to seek help at this critical point in his life, he asked me where he was, as he had no recollection. I told him "Truth or Consequenses, New Mexico". A very powerful moment for both of us.


Boo

[evildave]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda
Edave

I was on an airplane.
There was this button on the armrest of the chair, with a picture of a lightbulb nearby. I thought it might turn the reading light on.

I pressed it.....

You'll never guess what happened.....

Ahh, and I suppose if you visited the cockpit and saw all the buttons, you'd begin playng with those?

[FireGarden]

Ruby
I might think it a hoax, but I would not trust it enough to flip it. Who knows what little nasty joke would be played on me for flipping it. I'd just walk away.
[:)]
And I could reply to this post.
But what if it's a trick? Who knows what nasty little joke would be played on me for replying? What if my post gets nominated for Hoyt's illogic prize?

- - SCREAM - -

I better not.
I'll just pretend it's a prank, not real, and do nothing about it.
Walk on by, it's not my responsibility.
[/:)]


EDave
How tough can it be to fly a plane? It's got a handle bar, those pedal thingys for you feet, a window to look out of, ... Flying is the safest form of transport, and I drive a car without causing accidents, so......

If there was no-one else in the cockpit, there was no time to find a pilot because the plane was about to crash and I happened to visit the cockpit and saw all the pretty buttons, .. Well, I just might say "to hell with EDave's advice, I have a moral responsibility to keep this plane in the air. Or atleast try and avoid all those little houses down there."

Of course, my flying skills might be so bad that I divert the plane into a more crowded area, killing more people than if I had done nothing. But you've got to try. Otherwise you have to live with an immobilising fear of all of your actions having terrible consequences.

[Slippery slope fallacy alert]
What's so unique about pressing buttons?
Don't go to the store today, you might annoy a maniac who pulls out a machine gun and slaughters a store-full of people.
[/Slippery slope fallacy alert]

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda

EDave

[Slippery slope fallacy alert]
What's so unique about pressing buttons?
Don't go to the store today, you might annoy a maniac who pulls out a machine gun and slaughters a store-full of people.
[/Slippery slope fallacy alert]

[suggesting ' everyone but you is an idiot ' alert] I think Evil Dave sensed that most of us would understand the difference between the uninformed, playing with the buttons in the cockpit of a 747, and an unfamiliar talking alarm clock..
But that's just my guess.[/suggesting ' everyone but you is an idiot ' alert]

[FireGarden]

Originally posted by Diogenes


[suggesting ' everyone but you is an idiot ' alert] I think Evil Dave sensed that most of us would understand the difference between the uninformed, playing with the buttons in the cockpit of a 747, and an unfamiliar talking alarm clock..
But that's just my guess.[/suggesting ' everyone but you is an idiot ' alert]
['I should speak plainly cause people might take me literally']
It was intended as a daft example

Sure, day-to-day, no-one should mess with the controls of a 747. But when the alternative is death and destruction you should have a go.

ie: "I don't know if my actions will have the desired result" is a wimpish cop-out in situations where quick action is needed - And where you are the only one with the opportunity to act
[/'I should speak plainly cause people might take me literally']


Edite to add "and where..."

[Martin]

Originally posted by GoodPropaganda
Of course, my flying skills might be so bad that I divert the plane into a more crowded area, killing more people than if I had done nothing. But you've got to try. Otherwise you have to live with an immobilising fear of all of your actions having terrible consequencesIf you're on the plane, I think it's rather unlikely that you'll have to live with it for very long.

[Bluegill]

I voted "yes." I'd be hopping mad about the whole situation, though. After they arrested me, I'd escape from jail and hunt down the man who built the switch, finding him just before Tommy Lee Jones caught up with me.


edited to add: the poll is now 50/50!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Bluegill
I voted "yes." I'd be hopping mad about the whole situation, though. After they arrested me, I'd escape from jail and hunt down the man who built the switch, finding him just before Tommy Lee Jones caught up with me.


edited to add: the poll is now 50/50!

But then, Tommy Lee neurolizes you and takes you to the diner for coffee an donuts. And now, you are a member of an elite organization.... Well, you know the rest...

[Beleth]

Wow.

Far, far more evenly split than what I was expecting.


I am moderately surprised at how many people brought extraneous ("un-given", if you will) information to the problem. For instance -

BobK: "It seems to me the person who put the sign up knows what the situation is and is likely to know people in one or both towns."

Reb: "I would put the toggle in the middle position"

Ruby (and many others in other words): "I would think it was a hoax."

gnome: "The evil mastermind behind this could destroy any towns he wanted, obviously, with or without your help.... "

evildave: well, pretty much his entire first post.


I personally don't see how any of this un-given information helps one decide, but if it helps you justify your actions, then so be it. For what it's worth, though, there is no middle position on the switch, and I admit I should have said "August 2, 2003".


Would you regret your decision if you didn't flip the switch and the headline of the Albuquerque Tribune the next day was, in fact, "Entire Population of X Killed In Poison Gas Leak"?

[BobK]

Beleth,

What was your choice???

As to your new question, I'd have no regrets at all.

edit to add...

I pondered the situation when I was in a position to throw the switch or not.

Having given my best effort in resolving the situation, why should I have any regrets?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Beleth
Wow.

Far, far more evenly split than what I was expecting.


I am moderately surprised at how many people brought extraneous ("un-given", if you will) information to the problem. For instance -

BobK: "It seems to me the person who put the sign up knows what the situation is and is likely to know people in one or both towns."

Reb: "I would put the toggle in the middle position"

Ruby (and many others in other words): "I would think it was a hoax."

gnome: "The evil mastermind behind this could destroy any towns he wanted, obviously, with or without your help.... "

evildave: well, pretty much his entire first post.


I personally don't see how any of this un-given information helps one decide, but if it helps you justify your actions, then so be it. For what it's worth, though, there is no middle position on the switch, and I admit I should have said "August 2, 2003".


Would you regret your decision if you didn't flip the switch and the headline of the Albuquerque Tribune the next day was, in fact, "Entire Population of X Killed In Poison Gas Leak"?

In case you hadn't noticed, we let this one go last week. and everyone understood what would happen if the switch wasn't flipped.

Who among us said we wouldn't regret killing anyone? Your dilemna gave us no choice in that regard..

[BobK]

It seems to me, if a person was unsure of their decision, but decided to throw the switch, they might have regrets, because they are now held in abhorence by millions for killing 900,000 people.

Maybe you should do a similar poll using an equal population size, but distributed by age, like town X contains only children up to the age of 10, town Y contains only people aged 20 to 30.

[Andonyx]

Yes, middle position is not an option since it is the act of being sitched down or NOT that determines the consequences.

Leaving it in the middle is still failing to flip it to down which means 1,000,000 people still die.

I would pull it and hope for the best.

(The best being that town Y is actually Albuquerque and as such no one at their newspaper will be alive to get my photo.)

[jj]

Originally posted by Ruby


Nope, not likely. For one thing, I would think it was a hoax. For another, I'd still think it was a hoax!:eek:

Yeah, that was part of the problem I was having.

I'd also try to break the sucker, just to make sure.

Shows the falsity of a "yes/no" dilemma.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Diogenes
In case you hadn't noticed, we let this one go last week. and everyone understood what would happen if the switch wasn't flipped.
I know. I should have replied last week. My bad.

And no, not everyone understood what would happen if the switch wasn't flipped. Specifically, the people that thought it was a hoax, or evildave who gave all sorts of reasons why such a gassing was impossible, didn't understand what would happen if the switch wasn't flipped.


Who among us said we wouldn't regret killing anyone? Your dilemna gave us no choice in that regard..
Please re-read my question. I didn't ask whether you would feel regret over having people die; I asked whether you would feel regret over having not flipped the switch.

BobK -
I would have removed the sign (or written down what the sign said) so I would have a defense in court after my picture appeared in the paper, and then flipped the switch.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Beleth




Please re-read my question. I didn't ask whether you would feel regret over having people die; I asked whether you would feel regret over having not flipped the switch.



Your kidding!!


1. Flipping switch will kill group A
2. Not flipping switch will kill group B

Explain how you can seperate " regret over people dying " from " regret over not flipping the switch "....

:rolleyes:


If you insist on an answer, I would say " No, I do not regret ' not flipping the switch ', but I do regret killing people as a result of my innaction ...

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Your kidding!!


1. Flipping switch will kill group A
2. Not flipping switch will kill group B

Explain how you can seperate " regret over people dying " from " regret over not flipping the switch "....


Oh come on, you get it. Flipping it kills less people. He means "would you regret the lost opportunity to save some lives". I think.

[FireGarden]

I know. I should have replied last week. My bad.
That's OK
It seems that there's still some life in this thread.


I think I could have made a better point by forgetting the airplane scenarios and replying to this part of EDave's post:
In any event, even if the switch is "real", and you managed to "save" 100,000 lives (which is an awfully difficult thing to prove in court) it will be YOUR responsibility that the other 900,000 people died when you throw that switch.
I don't think that walking away frees you from responsibilty. You're involved from the moment you read the notice.


On regret,
If, after I flip the switch, there is an investigation that shows that fewer people would have died had I not flipped the switch....

Yes, I would have regrets.
But I think that you have to do what you think is best, even in situations where you can't tell for certain what is best.



posted by Diogenes (a long time ago)
All I can say for sure, is that it is immoral to give someone the choice of killing 1,000,000 or 900,000.

Yes, it's very sick and twisted

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Sundog


Oh come on, you get it. Flipping it kills less people. He means "would you regret the lost opportunity to save some lives". I think.

Oh, you come on!:)

Giving us two choices, with no option out, means at least 900,000 will die.. Sorry, but I'm not going to feel more regret about a nice round million...

You sound like my wife who comes home from shopping, all excited about the money she saved ......:D

[evildave]

Know thyself.

The only thing I ever "know" is that memory is faulty (especially mine), and that almanac information is usually outdated when it's printed, and becomes more outdated with time, and that "facts" like 900,000 (typically) here versus 1,000,000 (typically) there are (typically) meaningless. As I point out, I can not KNOW how many people are in a whole city RIGHT NOW from the middle of the desert with a gas can in my hand.

It's a 'False Dilemma'. Evidence: One or more additional possibilities (if only you take a moment to consider them).

Black & white thinking is prone to this fallacy.

Vast underground networks or networked synchronized gas dispensers forming a doomsday device are very complicated to make and install. Impossible, really.

Murderous booby traps are simple to make. Pipe bomb, battery, switch, box, wire, sign.

Your picture could be in the paper all right: when they find your smoking carcass scattered around a black mark, followed by your name the next day or two when they investigate the abandoned car and match up the teeth and bits of head that they picked from the asphalt with tweezers.

Even if it's "all real" the wind can blow that million pounds of poison gas the wrong way (you'd need at least this much to kill a whole city), and because you sent it to the smaller city, it kills everyone there AND blows to the larger city, killing everyone in between. Congratulations: You killed 2 million. Gas is "funny" that way.

Leave it alone, call the cops at the gas station.

Simple.

[elliotfc]

[i]At 4:55 PM you come across a strange red toggle switch, and a sign above the switch which reads:


WARNING

If this switch is not moved to the DOWN position by 5:00 PM on August 2, poisonous vapors will flood the nearby town of X.

If it is moved to the DOWN position, poisonous vapors will flood the nearby town of Y, and a snapshot of the person moving the switch will be sent to the editors of the Albuquerque Tribune.


You know nobody in either X or Y, but you do know that X has a population of 1,000,000 people, and Y has a population of 900,000.

In other words, by flipping the switch, you save the lives of a net 100,000 people, but you run the risk of being known as the person who killed everyone in Y.

Do you flip the switch? [/B]

If it was me, I would ignore the switch. Such a scenario sounds so outrageous that I would assume it was a gag (like a Candad Camera dealy), or if I was feeling very paranoid maybe a booby-trap. I would just keep walking. If it turned out I was incorrect, I would plead guilty by reason of incredulity.

That is, I think, basically EXACTLY what I would do. If someone put a gun to my head and told me to pick one or the other, then I would flick the switch to the position that would result in fewer people being killed, and not worry about the whole thing about my picture being taken.

-Elliot

[FireGarden]

Evildave
Given that it's not likely to destroy the whole town, you don't know which scenario will cause greater casualties. The gas in town Y might be located in a populous region, but in town X it's in a disused region.

So there's no reason to prefer the switch being flicked one way or the other.
And personal danger to yourself would suggest leaving well alone.
And I wouldn't convict anybody who thought that it was a hoax and decided to ignore it. (like elliotfc)

You win.
(But I'd still try and fly the plane!)

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Sundog
He means "would you regret the lost opportunity to save some lives". I think.
Perhaps I should have declared the group my question was aimed at more clearly.

I was mainly asking the people like Ruby, evildave, and (although he hadn't posted yet) elliotfc who justified their decision based on a belief that the whole setup was a hoax, or just plain impossible, or perhaps a booby trap designed to harm the switch-flipper.

If this is the way you justified your inaction, would you regret your decision after seeing that it wasn't a hoax or impossible?


For what it's worth (and I already regret posting this part, even before I have typed it all in, because I know it'll cause no end of arguments), the scenario I was picturing was some sort of secret unused military missile silo that, for some reason, needed to vent toxic gas precisely every 25 years. City X was unwittingly built on top of the vent after the last venting, so the military built another vent far enough away from X to not harm the people of X... and then to their chagrin, City Y was built on top of that vent just as their vent-building funds ran out. Instead of building a third vent, they built the toggle and moved out.

Replace "unused military missile silo" and "the military" with "naturally-reoccurring toxic gas geyser" and "concerned scientists that no one listens to" if you want.

[evildave]

Case 1: Idiot government's fault. How do you "forget" a whole missile installation? They're usually pretty good about "minor" details like this... and once again, it would have to be one TREMENDOUS missile (bigger than the moon rockets) in order to have this much gas/vapor to vent.

Case 2: Idiot "scientist's" fault. He set the whole thing up, but didn't have the guts to do anything about it? If his methods are so wacky that nobody pays attention to him, who's to say whatever contraption he set up won't kill more than allowing the event to occur (or not) as it naturally would have?

There are so many things to regret at any given time that I don't generally bother with it. I'd probably run the scenario through my head a many times over several weeks, and then forget about it and move on.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Beleth
gnome: "The evil mastermind behind this could destroy any towns he wanted, obviously, with or without your help.... "

I personally don't see how any of this un-given information helps one decide, but if it helps you justify your actions, then so be it.

I think my comment is a reasonable conclusion based on the information given. Whoever wrote such an explicit sign was obviously aware of the situation. They either discovered the situation or engineered it. Either way they had control of the situation and the information behind it. If they discovered it, they could have chosen to save either city themselves without waiting for the next person to discover their "sign" and there is no reason to trust their information. If they engineered it, they could have destroyed the city of their choice immediately, without putting in a switch and a dilemma sign. So clearly the intent was to present a dilemma for their own curiosity or entertainment. So they could not be trusted either.

Either way you do not know of your own personal knowledge that the sign posted is correct (and it was not stated so in the description).

This is why I suggested that the dilemma you were reaching for would have been better phrased if the subject was the one that discovered the consequences of pulling the switch, or if the information came from a trusted source.

Would you regret your decision if you didn't flip the switch and the headline of the Albuquerque Tribune the next day was, in fact, "Entire Population of X Killed In Poison Gas Leak"?

Yes, obviously. But my primary regret would be that I couldn't tell the best course of action in time to make a difference.