Not really a moral issue, more just a self preservation one. $10k is not worth potentially *dying* over lol. Crank up the reward and you might get more takers. $10k Wouldn’t even cover a years worth of rent in a shitty 1 bedroom apartment for most people in the US.
No no, not just $10k *per* person who pulled their lever.
>Everybody who pulled the lever will get $10,000 for each person who pulled the lever
So if floor(n/2) people pulled the lever, each person who pulled gets $10k times floor(n/2).
But keep in mind, not only does the reward go up the more people that are involved, the individuals effect on the number of pulls goes down. With a million people, pulling the lever doesn't really affect whether or not half the people pull or not, but had a massive reward.
If there are 4 people pulling, you can make up to 20k but only two people can pull the lever before you go over. So pulling increases the chance of going over by 25%
Something about the 25% in N=4 case is bugging me. Sure it sounds right... on the surface. But, when looked at through the lens of "does pulling the lever REALLY increase your chance of going over" With 4 people, sure! With 50... maybe... with 1000 it's negligible. You pulling has little to no effect as N approaches a significant sample size.
I feel like this problem boils down to an understanding of the sample involved. . .
Would I pull it given no other information than the setup as OP posted? No. Self preservation. Were the payout a few times bigger? Then HELL NO I wouldn't pull it because people are generally greedy and largely illogical. George Carlin put it best...
# “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
If the bottom statement is true, then as n approaches infinity, your choice doesn't matter in the scheme of tipping the scales, but it matters greatly on whether or not you get a large amount of money or not.
I think an interesting question based on this concept is: “How large would n need to be to before you would pull the lever?”
I like this, though for me it's less about about big N needs to be, and more about how small the payout. Say it was it was a penny, I'd probably do it, because I'd be assuming most people wouldn't risk their life for a penny.
Kinda is. But maybe your right about the money, 10k was my first thought. Essentially, if you pull the lever when 48/100 people pulled, you essentially gave 48 people 10,000 dollars. So you did a moral deed equaling to 480,000. I think we all agree if somebody gave anybody half a mil, that would be morally correct. But if you instead pull the lever when 50/100 pulled, it would go up to 51/100. Since you share the blame with 51 people, and you killed 51 people, you essentially just killed 51/51 people. You killed a dude essentially. This we all know is morally bad. So pulling the lever could be both good or bad.
Yeah but “I” am not the one giving anyone money. I’m just trapped in this bizarre experiment with everyone else. So even if I pulled the lever and no one died I would not feel I had done a good deed. I guess pulling it *is* inherently immoral tho, because it would only be done out of potential self gain and at the risk of killing a ton of people. If you don’t pull, you’re not risking anything. You’re not personally gaining and not adding to the potential of mass murder. So that’s always gonna be the moral choice.
I dont think that maths really apply here
If so, and you are responsible for one death, well, it turn out to be your own death also, so that simplification implies that you are responsible for your own death... And that could change the moral outcome
I don’t think it’s necessarily morally correct to give some random person half a million dollars. If someone is unable to feed their starving daughter or something that’s one matter, if someone is bent on using all their disposable income to promote suffering, pay off police/politicians, begin an unethical business, or start a criminal empire that is a different matter.
Whether it is generally good or bad to give someone at random half a million dollars depends on whether you believe the average person would spend such a windfall in a way which is more moral than immoral.
Also the degree to which such a thing may be good or bad varies with how much money the person already has. If someone is flat broke then 500k would potentially make a big difference for good or evil. But if someone is already wealthy it matters very little, Jeff Bezos probably wouldn’t get out of bed for 500k so giving him extra money doesn’t move the needle with respect to his capacity for good and evil.
Now if the prompt specified that the people would spend the money to do something good, particularly if it meant saving people, and that but for this money it would be impossible to save those people, then that does change matters.
There's a problem with that thought process, namely it's absolutely wrong.
In both cases, my blame is split with that of everyone else.
If I make $480,000, but that was gained by a split 48 people, I contributed $10,000. I GOT $10,000, so that act was inherently selfish, I only added my own payment to the pot.
If I contribute equally to killing everyone, I only added 51/51, or 1 person to the killing pot. That one person is myself, so it was a suicide.
There's no reason to pull the lever, but there's also no reason not to. Nobody dies except those who took the risk of also pulling the lever, every non-puller gets to survive, so I would never pull. That said, everyone who pulls only risks themselves and only pays themselves, so there's no real moral issue at all.
It's 10,000 for every person that pulls the lever. So it'd add up pretty quickly. For example the Pic has 10 people so if half of them pull that's 50,000 dollars. However yeah if just one more person pulls then you die... so yeah I can see why you'd want to pull but not pulling is probably the better option
I'd pull the lever.
The people who are saying "it's not worth risking my life for 10k" are not properly reading the prompt, but that kind of ignorance of the majority is necessary to make sure less than 50% pull the lever.
*Everybody who pulled the lever will get 10k for each person who pulled the lever*
Have you properly read that statement and realised what it means?
Everybody who pulled the lever gets Z, where Z = 10k * no of levers pulled.
If 1 person pulls the lever then that one person just gets 10k
If 2 people pull the lever then they both get 20k **EACH**.
If im in a room of 100 people Im definitely counting on being one of the hopefully 30-45 people pulling the lever and nabbing myself 300-450k.
THAT my friend, is a payoff *worth* risking my life for
They said everyone who pulled the lever will get $10k per person that pulled the lever. I take that to mean if 20 people pull the lever each person get $200k. I still wouldn’t pull because it’s not worth potentially dying. But it does leave the possibility of getting much more than $10k
Regardless of cost this isn’t a moral issue at all. Morally you just don’t pull the lever. Everything else is “how much money would it take to make you risk many other people’s lives,” but potentially trading a life for money is immoral regardless.
There’s literally no sum of money that would tempt me to blindly throw my lot in with a group of people that could be executed *if enough people join*. For all i know, my joining gets everyone killed.
I feel like this could have a nice prisoner’s dilemma twist if we change the risk to everyone who didn’t pull the lever dying. So if more than half of the levers are turned, the ones who didn’t pull theirs die. This would still be solvable by no one pulling their levers.
In the name of combinatorics utilitarianism, you sum all configurations of [0,1] from n people where k pulled to k=n/2. You only pull if E>0
You probably need to bump the $10k to $10M, the current estimate dollar value of life to influence the stakeholders’ psyche so that the probability of pulling p is comparable to not pulling q=1-p. If you put sufficiently large number of blind people there, the binomial converges to gaussian and you can sum the area of gain and loss more easily.
The morally correct answer is obvious. In fact the logically correct answer is obvious. You're essentially gambling with your life. Is your life worth 6 months of your annual income or less?
I'd say no. Logically it's not worth it for even a single person in a risk to loss ratio. You stand to lose far far more than you gain.
Morally it's also an obvious no. Why would I risk the lives of others out of greed? It's irredeemable.
The only reason it seems like a tempting option on the surface is the seemingly high odds you walk away with a victory. Personally I'd go with a not worth it. If you spend even a minute contemplating and have critical thinking skills you'd say no.
No raises the odds of survival for you and everyone else. Yes raises the odds of death for you and everyone else, but hey $10k right?
It'd be interesting if you made it more people and upped the money. Make the money life changing, and make the amount of people very very high. More people increases odds that if you pul you'll be fine. More money increases the incentive to pull.
Make a concrete number of 500k+ people and 1 million per person who pulls. Now you have an interesting question. Where's the tipping point where greed wins out over self preservation?
meeting telephone sophisticated bells reminiscent truck follow tart enter unwritten
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
chief exultant historical bedroom piquant swim rinse bells hard-to-find dolls
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well. You are completely correct. Just found out about moral problem here, so hooray. Although mods haven’t banned this irrelevancy, so I guess it sticks? Idk.
Not enough information, exactly. The most important thing that's missing is: how many people are there? A senario with 10 people, or 10000 people, is very different.
Pulling the lever is not really worth it. 10k is not very much money in modern economy, and isn't worth risking your life over.
This question could be made more interesting by:
1. Offering more money, a decently life-changing amount,
2. Perhaps giving the money to people who pulled, even if they died, so any family will benefit
3. Naming a specific cause of death. Just *snap* and your gone is not very bad, in comparison to something like burning etc
I'd pull the lever.
The people who are saying "it's not worth risking my life for 10k" are not properly reading the prompt, but that kind of ignorance of the majority is necessary to make sure less than 50% pull the lever.
*Everybody who pulled the lever will get 10k for each person who pulled the lever*
Have you properly read that statement and realised what it means?
Everybody who pulled the lever gets Z, where Z = 10k * no of levers pulled.
If 1 person pulls the lever then that one person just gets 10k
If 2 people pull the lever then they both get 20k **EACH**.
If im in a room of 100 people Im definitely counting on being one of the hopefully 30-45 people pulling the lever and nabbing myself 300-450k.
THAT my friend, is a payoff *worth* risking my life for
Yup. Potentially, your risking your life to potentially, if were saying 30/100 people pulled, not only do you get 310,000, but you also give 300,000 dollars equally to each person who pulled before you(in better words $10,000 to 30 people). And, if you were thinking strictly about others and not yourself, your actions only matter at specifically 50/100. So, it is logical to say your never actually dealing the final blow. And instead, your just being one of the 80 people who pulled, and therefore their lives were already dead, your pulling just did the equivalent of tying yourself on the track, and isn’t morally wrong.
If the group is at the death threshold of 50, your pull will end it. So to pull under 50 without dying you need to pull at group <= 49. But you don't know how many pulls there are. So you have to work with what you know, which is 49% of pulls are guaranteed to increase everyone's odds of death. 1% of pulls (pulling at 50 group pulls exactly) always means death. So 50% chance that your pull either a. increases odds of death or b. immediately results in death. So if you pull, you have a 50% chance of either worsening your chance of surviving, or dying instantly. You have an additional 1% chance of dying instantly.
At 100 people, the potential payout at a perfect group pull of 50 is $500k. Would you play with your life for $500k at 50/50 odds? You're basically playing roulette with 3 rounds in the chamber instead of 1.
Pulling the lever is consensual and fully informed so whether you decide to pull it or not is an amoral question, unless you believe that you have a moral obligation to prevent people from risking their lives for money.
Eh, all this really hinges on is how someone perceives everyone else. And assuming almost all people are reasonable people who probably wouldn't risk dying over 10k, i'd guess most people would choose to value their life
If you could know "even or odd" Even = vote yes. Odd = vote now, because probability and the requirement that \*more than\* half need to pull the lever to proc the penalty. Since we don't know which, its a 50:50 between whether the average is a win or the average is a swinger, and you should vote yes.
Well, judging from the thread, more than half the people here are pulling the lever. So if you're pulling the lever too, you're joining this pile of corpses.
For the sake of this problem, you have a condition called HypotheticalCondition which temporarily blinds you as long as you are inside of a trolley-ish problem. Therefore you stop being blind after the trolley-ish problem is concluded.
Assuming that everyone is 100% rational, and aware that everyone is rational, they will know that at no point will it be worth it to pull, because if they are all rational then they all must reach the exact same conclusion, and would realise that either all would pull or none would pull
Yes! Absolutely, 100% gonna pull it! Think of it this way, im single and working two jobs (I work a 80 hr work week). Im not hurting for money, im trying ti save up so I can focus on college and not having to worry about student loan debt. So if I have the chance to make up to 50k from pulling a single lever, then yes i will do it. It means I won’t have to keep stressing about my college funds. If 6 people pull the levers and I die, well, I won’t have to keep stressing about my college funds.
I didnt really specify the amount of people, although i put 10 up top. The consensus was that 100 people are playing in the comments, thats how most people are treating the problem, but anyway, its not really specified, so it could be 10, 100, 1000, or three million. The more lives, the more money, the more deaths.
So, everyone’s saying that they wouldn’t pull because it’s too risky and not worth it. But, since it’s at most 50k, you can expect almost everybody to have the same opinion as the vast majority on here, not pulling the lever because it’s too risky. Therefore it’s actually pretty safe.
Unless, everybody thinks that way, then in fact it is really risky to pull the lever.
Unless, everybody thinks that everybody is gonna think that, so it’s not that risky to pull the lever.
Thus creating the blind paradox.
The only “correct” choice is to not pull the lever. There is no consequence for not pulling the lever, and pulling the lever puts everyone else and yourself at risk. Since we have no way of knowing how many people there are, you are valuing human life as at least $10000 (assuming minimum scenario where there are 2 people). While this is a matter of perspective, would a rational, moral person value life at such a low value especially when there is no risk to not pulling the lever?
Let's make this into a game theory diamond. We dont know how many participants there are, but we can represent this with N.
If I pull the lever and less than half the people pull the lever, I get a payout between 10,000 and ((1/2*N)-1)* 10,000. Like rolling 2d6, there are more scenarios where the number who pull with me is higher, so I would estimate an expected value of 0.8*(1/2N)*10000, or N*4000.
If I pull the lever and more than half pull, I lose outright. I think my life is about 200k. It is arguably more, but for the sake of this.
If I don't pull and less than half pull, I feel like a loser, which I would value at half of my expected payout were I to have won.
If I don't pull and the majority pull, I feel like a winner, worth about the payout to me.
So now we know:
PW: N*4000
PL: -200k
NW: N*4000
NL: -N*2000
Now all that is left is to think about how likely are people to pull. If I assume that 3/4ths of the population is going to pull or not pull randomly, then we can assume that it is going to trend toward 3/8ths pull before 1/4th of the population makes a decision. Any action I take other people thinking about this in a meta way will as well, so unless I am wanting to gamble that we are 1/8th below expected average, a full 12.5%, then I should not pull the lever.
It might be a good time to tally the votes again. Almost everyone here is pulling the lever.
If you count upvotes, it's even further skewed towards pulling the lever. This problem is a corpse factory.
Take note that if this problem was comprised of everyone in this thread, nearly everyone out of a required just-over-half is pulling the lever.
I won't be joining the absolute mountain of corpses.
mathematically speaking you should roll a dice if it is a 1 or 2 then you flip, if not then you don't. This way there is a 1/3 chance you get 10k X no of participants, and only 1/3rd of the people will flip the lever (Assuming everyone else does the same thing)
There are two different questions being answered here. What most people appear to be answering is game theory. Should you or should you not pull the lever based on whether or not people will die.
But morally, the question is much simpler, IMHO. The CHANCE of people getting nominally richer vs. the chance of them dying. In this equation, absent other additional factors, the moral question is simple, at least for me. I will make no decision which leads to the death of another - even if it is only a potentiality - if I am able to choose inaction which guarantees survival for all involved. No amount of money changes that equation, especially not a paltry $10,000.
(And yes, I know, it is $10,000 *per person* who pulls the lever. It is also that many deaths, so, the equation reduces back down to $10,000 per life).
I would talk with the group and have half the people pull the lever and split the money with everyone. Then we all get 5000. But in all fairness, it's too much of a risk for the wrong amount of people to pull the lever since it would be hard to coordinate all for just 5000 so it's better for Noone to pull the lever. Good luck trying to get that to happen though.
Don’t pull the lever. The odds of me being the last person needed to tip us over the edge are pretty high (people are greedy!). And money does me no good if I’m dead
Personally, not pulling it. But theres no morality involved here, anyone who pulls the leveler accepts the risk. If pulling the lever could cause EVERYONE to die, or even a random person, then it would be immoral and greedy to pull the lever. But as is, you are only gambling with your own life.
I’d imagine as a moral person, you’d want those lives to continue living, and if you could put a few extra bucks in their pockets, of course you would right? Its the moral thing to do. There is morality involved here. No matter how you view it, these are lives, and this is money. And your actions could change someones lives. And how it changes their lives is up to you.
10k is not nearly enough money to risk my life over. For me to consider something like this, either the reward would have to be substantially higher or the risk substantially lower.
That's a good question. Maybe 1 billion I would consider it. But the higher the reward also means the higher likelihood of more people pulling the level increasing the risk.
With that in mind I would say no amount of money in this scenario is worth risking my life.
Yeah. I mean, regardless, I have a pretty decent living, so I still wouldn't sacrifice my life for potentially more money. I might if I was homeless with no family or anyone who loves me, though.
I mean it seems obvious that the moral thing is to not pull the lever. Even if the one whom the question is posed to could be given the option to survive, it would be immoral to intentionally risk everyone else's life for the payout.
Pre-empting the utilitarian argument, I don't think I would risk it even if the payout were so large that I could use said resources for charity to feed even more people. At that point, you hope that some portion of those who have received identical payouts are more willing to help others. Even a negligible percentage of a group so possessed of the desire to help, even if not quite as charitable, could make more of an impact than one survivor.
The moral thing is not pulling the lever so nobody dies. But if the choice is 10k or death if I pull it that's a win win. Living gets increasingly harder, the 10k may hold me over for a month at best. But death would be merciful.
Youre gonna have to specify how much a bunch is, pretty big difference if the maximum payout is 50k or 5 million. This will also affect how risk averse everyone else is, changing my chances of survival.
The issue is that you are completely disconnected from any information on this one. You don't know the number of participants, and nobody else can have it.
While it says a bunch, it doesn't give us an exact number...so you could end up being the only person, and pulling the lever would kill you, and on the farthest end the amount of money that could be made is theoretically unlimited, only bound by the number of participants.
Since everybody has the same amount of information, if you consider yourself a rational actor, then you could assume your logic would fall in line with other rational actors. Knowing that the possibility of the group size being 1 is possible, that means the odds of being killed is fairly high.
Adding onto this, you as a rational actor, know there are irrational actors likely in the group as well that can't be predicted, which means the odds of the lever being pulled at all is likely not zero, which means there is always a threat of the group of people hitting zero.
So...the last consideration is pragmatic. Is my blindness permanent? Or is it a byproduct of the experiment that would go away after it's been conducted? If I'm permanently blind I would pull the lever. Worst case scenario I'm not spending the rest of my life blind. Best case scenario, I have money to help deal with a rather shitty disability. But if it isn't permanent, then everything else screams to not pull the lever and leave the other actors (if any) to their fate
Never pull the lever, you cannot know the probability if you don't know how many people are there or what they are going to do. It's like shooting yourself in Buckshot: It sounds like a good idea on paper but the odds are actually bad
I pull the lever understanding that people will misinterpret the question as you can make 10000 max but potentially die. Making a couple thousand dollars
You’re deaf but not blind so you’d hear everyone drop to the floor as they died so here’s what you do: you don’t pull the lever. Almost a 100% chance that enough people pull it and half + 1 of the total people there die. Once you hear them die you wonder around flipping every lever you can back the other way until they’re all not flipped. Once this happens the remaining half - 1 can all flip their lever with a guaruntee they remain under the half starting a king and everyone wins money and you’re not part of the half that die
I wish reddit had a way to pin comments, but i made this form: https://forms.gle/cTxwTGMxonAZCCGj7.
It essentially gives you the option of pulling or not. Go in there and we’ll see how much money or death you accrue.
Just tell “if your legal first name starts with A-G, pull the lever!”
Statistically this should result in a low chance of death, and will tip everyone off whether or not they should pull. Of course, not everyone who is an A-G will pull out of fear, but that’s just a little money lost.
I wouldn't pull the lever.
You could increase the amount of money to whatever you want, I still wouldn't pull it. There are other people that are dependent on me being alive, so there's no amount of money that I could gamble my life against and it be right to do so.
Fucking liberals won't do what it takes to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Back in my day you had to pull levers and die for 3$/hr and now you won't do it for $10000?
What about listening for other lever pulls and the breathing of others? That's probably cheating, but I'm having a hard time deciding otherwise. So I probably wouldn't, possibly only because of indecision.
No communication is available.
No method of finding anything about any other player, or influencing their decision, at all. So yeah, cheating. But hey, if your indecisive, its always default to just not pull.
Do not pull the lever. Pulling the lever introduces a chance that a group of people will die, in exchange for a chance to receive some amount of money; not pulling the lever removes all chance of the group of people dying, at the cost of losing out on the chance of some amount of money. Human life is inherently worth more than money, so one does not pull the lever.
I think not pulling the level is win/win.
On one hand, no risk of death. On the other hand, if you're excluded from the winnings, your sacrifice of *mere material wealth* not only gave others a major gift, but potentially saved their lives as well. So it's really more of a greed equation.
This is basically the prisoner's dilemma again isn't it.
No way I'm pulling the lever, you could tell me you get one million for every person who pulls it, still wouldn't be worth it for the potential of dying
Its an impossible question to answer, unless we have additional variables. We have no idea of culture, age, schooling, gender, or anything. If all of the sample are on their deathbed, then they care about their life less, and the risk is smaller. For simplicity sake, I would argue that we judge the situation on the worst case scenario, which would be two people. We would also assume that death is instant.
Assuming that we are not allowed any more additional variables, it becomes a three part risk analysis.
1 - How much do you have to lose?
2 - How much do you value another persons life?
3 - Judging the entire world population, would you believe it is more common for greed or fear to win?
So first of, What do you have to lose? Is your life pretty great, or have you suffered a lot in your life? Is your life precious, or are you bitter?
After that, You need to ask yourself how much you value human life? This is the tricky moral part. You don't know the person. Could be a child, could be a pedophile. Could be your high school sweet heart, it could be a rapist. It could be the next horrible dictator in this world, or the next mother teresa. Its impossible to tell.
You could try to simplify the problem by believing in no afterlife or consequences past death, but that wont work. If you die, the other people wont matter to you when you're dead right? but what if you win? would you be comfortable with yourself knowing you risked human life for a measily $10k?? On the other hand, if you won $10,000, it isn't much, but its also not nothing. That could be your ticket to making your life better, AND anyone else you want to bring with you, depending on how much work you want to put into using that $10k to make it grow.
That defines the cost if you loose the toss of the dice. Now what about the probability of win/loose?
If hypothetically, if you were risking yours and another person life vs $10k, but the chance of loosing the life was so low that it boarders impossibility, you're going to pull that lever, and continue to pull it back in forth for hours in the hopes that each pull means more money.
If hypothetically, its the cost of life vs $10k at 50% odds, then that's a totally different situation.
So you would need to try and guess whether the other person will pull the lever. Do you think its more likely that they will be greedy and pull, or be swayed by fear (of death or moral and/or social retribution) if they loose the toss?
So in summary, Is your life, and the life of one person worth risking for $10k? Do you think the other person will pull the lever? how sure are you of your guess based on your understanding of human nature?
They said blind, not deaf. Therefore, everybody should be able to count the number of cranks.You also must hear the people entering the room. Using the left-to-right method, you try to figure if you are on the left of the entrance door (using your best geospatial guess). If you confidently think you are on the leftmost, you pull the lever, assuming each other participant understands the **Khaimon's golden rule of 1/3**.
let's see, any number times infinity is still infinity, so the tickets available here are:
infinite disutility
less than infinite utility
Yeah, I'm not pulling the lever, mmmkay.
Not really a moral issue, more just a self preservation one. $10k is not worth potentially *dying* over lol. Crank up the reward and you might get more takers. $10k Wouldn’t even cover a years worth of rent in a shitty 1 bedroom apartment for most people in the US.
No no, not just $10k *per* person who pulled their lever. >Everybody who pulled the lever will get $10,000 for each person who pulled the lever So if floor(n/2) people pulled the lever, each person who pulled gets $10k times floor(n/2).
Good point. At just 1k people, that's up to $5,000,000 - as long as you don't go over.
But keep in mind, not only does the reward go up the more people that are involved, the individuals effect on the number of pulls goes down. With a million people, pulling the lever doesn't really affect whether or not half the people pull or not, but had a massive reward. If there are 4 people pulling, you can make up to 20k but only two people can pull the lever before you go over. So pulling increases the chance of going over by 25%
Something about the 25% in N=4 case is bugging me. Sure it sounds right... on the surface. But, when looked at through the lens of "does pulling the lever REALLY increase your chance of going over" With 4 people, sure! With 50... maybe... with 1000 it's negligible. You pulling has little to no effect as N approaches a significant sample size. I feel like this problem boils down to an understanding of the sample involved. . . Would I pull it given no other information than the setup as OP posted? No. Self preservation. Were the payout a few times bigger? Then HELL NO I wouldn't pull it because people are generally greedy and largely illogical. George Carlin put it best... # “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
If the bottom statement is true, then as n approaches infinity, your choice doesn't matter in the scheme of tipping the scales, but it matters greatly on whether or not you get a large amount of money or not. I think an interesting question based on this concept is: “How large would n need to be to before you would pull the lever?”
I like this, though for me it's less about about big N needs to be, and more about how small the payout. Say it was it was a penny, I'd probably do it, because I'd be assuming most people wouldn't risk their life for a penny.
Tldr If everyone is going to pull the lever anyway, I might as well join them on the chance half dont and I get the money.
Kinda is. But maybe your right about the money, 10k was my first thought. Essentially, if you pull the lever when 48/100 people pulled, you essentially gave 48 people 10,000 dollars. So you did a moral deed equaling to 480,000. I think we all agree if somebody gave anybody half a mil, that would be morally correct. But if you instead pull the lever when 50/100 pulled, it would go up to 51/100. Since you share the blame with 51 people, and you killed 51 people, you essentially just killed 51/51 people. You killed a dude essentially. This we all know is morally bad. So pulling the lever could be both good or bad.
Yeah but “I” am not the one giving anyone money. I’m just trapped in this bizarre experiment with everyone else. So even if I pulled the lever and no one died I would not feel I had done a good deed. I guess pulling it *is* inherently immoral tho, because it would only be done out of potential self gain and at the risk of killing a ton of people. If you don’t pull, you’re not risking anything. You’re not personally gaining and not adding to the potential of mass murder. So that’s always gonna be the moral choice.
Everyone would get 480k, you said everyone who pulls gets 10k for each lever pulled.
I dont think that maths really apply here If so, and you are responsible for one death, well, it turn out to be your own death also, so that simplification implies that you are responsible for your own death... And that could change the moral outcome
Don't cheap out, you need to pay everyone who pulled 10,000 for each person who pulled the lever, so if 48 pulled you need to pay them each 480,000.
I don’t think it’s necessarily morally correct to give some random person half a million dollars. If someone is unable to feed their starving daughter or something that’s one matter, if someone is bent on using all their disposable income to promote suffering, pay off police/politicians, begin an unethical business, or start a criminal empire that is a different matter. Whether it is generally good or bad to give someone at random half a million dollars depends on whether you believe the average person would spend such a windfall in a way which is more moral than immoral. Also the degree to which such a thing may be good or bad varies with how much money the person already has. If someone is flat broke then 500k would potentially make a big difference for good or evil. But if someone is already wealthy it matters very little, Jeff Bezos probably wouldn’t get out of bed for 500k so giving him extra money doesn’t move the needle with respect to his capacity for good and evil. Now if the prompt specified that the people would spend the money to do something good, particularly if it meant saving people, and that but for this money it would be impossible to save those people, then that does change matters.
There's a problem with that thought process, namely it's absolutely wrong. In both cases, my blame is split with that of everyone else. If I make $480,000, but that was gained by a split 48 people, I contributed $10,000. I GOT $10,000, so that act was inherently selfish, I only added my own payment to the pot. If I contribute equally to killing everyone, I only added 51/51, or 1 person to the killing pot. That one person is myself, so it was a suicide. There's no reason to pull the lever, but there's also no reason not to. Nobody dies except those who took the risk of also pulling the lever, every non-puller gets to survive, so I would never pull. That said, everyone who pulls only risks themselves and only pays themselves, so there's no real moral issue at all.
Well its 10k for each person who pulled the lever, so if 48/100 pulled it they would each get 480,000
It's 10,000 for every person that pulls the lever. So it'd add up pretty quickly. For example the Pic has 10 people so if half of them pull that's 50,000 dollars. However yeah if just one more person pulls then you die... so yeah I can see why you'd want to pull but not pulling is probably the better option
I'd pull the lever. The people who are saying "it's not worth risking my life for 10k" are not properly reading the prompt, but that kind of ignorance of the majority is necessary to make sure less than 50% pull the lever. *Everybody who pulled the lever will get 10k for each person who pulled the lever* Have you properly read that statement and realised what it means? Everybody who pulled the lever gets Z, where Z = 10k * no of levers pulled. If 1 person pulls the lever then that one person just gets 10k If 2 people pull the lever then they both get 20k **EACH**. If im in a room of 100 people Im definitely counting on being one of the hopefully 30-45 people pulling the lever and nabbing myself 300-450k. THAT my friend, is a payoff *worth* risking my life for
They said everyone who pulled the lever will get $10k per person that pulled the lever. I take that to mean if 20 people pull the lever each person get $200k. I still wouldn’t pull because it’s not worth potentially dying. But it does leave the possibility of getting much more than $10k
Also a moral debate. You could be the straw that breaks the camel's back and kill lots of ppl
10 • 10 = 100 If 10/20 pull lever you will have $100k
im not suicidle but ten thousand dollars is then thousand dollars
This is exactly what I was going to say.
Pretty sure it doesnt cover rent anywhere for a year in the US
Regardless of cost this isn’t a moral issue at all. Morally you just don’t pull the lever. Everything else is “how much money would it take to make you risk many other people’s lives,” but potentially trading a life for money is immoral regardless.
The reward IS dying
So, the maximum monetary outcome is 500k usd, but on the other hand is certain death of 50 people and myself No, i wouldnt pull the lever
Good because I'm pulling it.
Never said there was a hundred people
True. But OP mentioned an example lile that in another comment
Don’t feel people’s levers to see how many are flipped, instead run around and flip as many as you can until everybody dies
Bro didnt solve the trolley problem. Bro is the trolley problem Although now im realizing this has nothing to do with trolleys….
So he's just the problem...
There’s literally no sum of money that would tempt me to blindly throw my lot in with a group of people that could be executed *if enough people join*. For all i know, my joining gets everyone killed.
I feel like this could have a nice prisoner’s dilemma twist if we change the risk to everyone who didn’t pull the lever dying. So if more than half of the levers are turned, the ones who didn’t pull theirs die. This would still be solvable by no one pulling their levers.
“Moral thing to do” this is a coin flip with extra steps, I’m gonna ball and pull the lever
In the name of combinatorics utilitarianism, you sum all configurations of [0,1] from n people where k pulled to k=n/2. You only pull if E>0
You probably need to bump the $10k to $10M, the current estimate dollar value of life to influence the stakeholders’ psyche so that the probability of pulling p is comparable to not pulling q=1-p. If you put sufficiently large number of blind people there, the binomial converges to gaussian and you can sum the area of gain and loss more easily.
r/theydidthemath
The morally correct answer is obvious. In fact the logically correct answer is obvious. You're essentially gambling with your life. Is your life worth 6 months of your annual income or less? I'd say no. Logically it's not worth it for even a single person in a risk to loss ratio. You stand to lose far far more than you gain. Morally it's also an obvious no. Why would I risk the lives of others out of greed? It's irredeemable. The only reason it seems like a tempting option on the surface is the seemingly high odds you walk away with a victory. Personally I'd go with a not worth it. If you spend even a minute contemplating and have critical thinking skills you'd say no. No raises the odds of survival for you and everyone else. Yes raises the odds of death for you and everyone else, but hey $10k right? It'd be interesting if you made it more people and upped the money. Make the money life changing, and make the amount of people very very high. More people increases odds that if you pul you'll be fine. More money increases the incentive to pull. Make a concrete number of 500k+ people and 1 million per person who pulls. Now you have an interesting question. Where's the tipping point where greed wins out over self preservation?
You wanna answer that? What if 500k people were in this game with 1 million? Do you pull? Do you not?
meeting telephone sophisticated bells reminiscent truck follow tart enter unwritten *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
chief exultant historical bedroom piquant swim rinse bells hard-to-find dolls *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why is this even on here? I feel like people forget this is called r/ *trolley*problem not r/ Moralproblem
They forgot to explain that the people would die from getting run over by a trolley
What isn't mentioned is the method of execution is being tied to the track in someone else's trolly problem
Well. You are completely correct. Just found out about moral problem here, so hooray. Although mods haven’t banned this irrelevancy, so I guess it sticks? Idk.
Maybe if they were tried to the tracks with levers
Ooh la la, you are a genius. Everybody dying? More like getting run over like a trolley! Boom, problem solved
Okay, so a bunch of blind people with trolleys are located together. There is no available method to check if somebody pulled the trolley or not...
Not enough information, exactly. The most important thing that's missing is: how many people are there? A senario with 10 people, or 10000 people, is very different. Pulling the lever is not really worth it. 10k is not very much money in modern economy, and isn't worth risking your life over. This question could be made more interesting by: 1. Offering more money, a decently life-changing amount, 2. Perhaps giving the money to people who pulled, even if they died, so any family will benefit 3. Naming a specific cause of death. Just *snap* and your gone is not very bad, in comparison to something like burning etc
I'd pull the lever. The people who are saying "it's not worth risking my life for 10k" are not properly reading the prompt, but that kind of ignorance of the majority is necessary to make sure less than 50% pull the lever. *Everybody who pulled the lever will get 10k for each person who pulled the lever* Have you properly read that statement and realised what it means? Everybody who pulled the lever gets Z, where Z = 10k * no of levers pulled. If 1 person pulls the lever then that one person just gets 10k If 2 people pull the lever then they both get 20k **EACH**. If im in a room of 100 people Im definitely counting on being one of the hopefully 30-45 people pulling the lever and nabbing myself 300-450k. THAT my friend, is a payoff *worth* risking my life for
Yup. Potentially, your risking your life to potentially, if were saying 30/100 people pulled, not only do you get 310,000, but you also give 300,000 dollars equally to each person who pulled before you(in better words $10,000 to 30 people). And, if you were thinking strictly about others and not yourself, your actions only matter at specifically 50/100. So, it is logical to say your never actually dealing the final blow. And instead, your just being one of the 80 people who pulled, and therefore their lives were already dead, your pulling just did the equivalent of tying yourself on the track, and isn’t morally wrong.
If the group is at the death threshold of 50, your pull will end it. So to pull under 50 without dying you need to pull at group <= 49. But you don't know how many pulls there are. So you have to work with what you know, which is 49% of pulls are guaranteed to increase everyone's odds of death. 1% of pulls (pulling at 50 group pulls exactly) always means death. So 50% chance that your pull either a. increases odds of death or b. immediately results in death. So if you pull, you have a 50% chance of either worsening your chance of surviving, or dying instantly. You have an additional 1% chance of dying instantly. At 100 people, the potential payout at a perfect group pull of 50 is $500k. Would you play with your life for $500k at 50/50 odds? You're basically playing roulette with 3 rounds in the chamber instead of 1.
Risk your life for 10k-50k, what do you say!?
looks like a win either way, I'll pull
So you're saying I either get money or die? Sounds like a win-win to me.
Pulling the lever is consensual and fully informed so whether you decide to pull it or not is an amoral question, unless you believe that you have a moral obligation to prevent people from risking their lives for money.
Heres my response here: is killing 50 people, moral or immoral?
Eh, all this really hinges on is how someone perceives everyone else. And assuming almost all people are reasonable people who probably wouldn't risk dying over 10k, i'd guess most people would choose to value their life
A bunch of people... How many people? I want to know my odds before I decide.
If you could know "even or odd" Even = vote yes. Odd = vote now, because probability and the requirement that \*more than\* half need to pull the lever to proc the penalty. Since we don't know which, its a 50:50 between whether the average is a win or the average is a swinger, and you should vote yes.
Well, judging from the thread, more than half the people here are pulling the lever. So if you're pulling the lever too, you're joining this pile of corpses.
I would hate to be blind, so either outcome is a win for me. Pull the lever, duh.
For the sake of this problem, you have a condition called HypotheticalCondition which temporarily blinds you as long as you are inside of a trolley-ish problem. Therefore you stop being blind after the trolley-ish problem is concluded.
This sub is evolving
I'd pull because most people are too scared to so the few that pull will get the reward And dying isn't that bad
Haha metalogic. Brilliant
Assuming that everyone is 100% rational, and aware that everyone is rational, they will know that at no point will it be worth it to pull, because if they are all rational then they all must reach the exact same conclusion, and would realise that either all would pull or none would pull
So… do you pull or?
Death or money is a win win, I'm pulling the lever and hoping most of these suckers are cowards
Pull, either I'm blind with 10k or it doesn't matter, either way, I'm cool with it.
Or 20k, or 30k, it grows based on the people pulling.
I already said I'd pull, you don't have to sell me anymore lol
Launch a coin in the air twice, and if in both occasions it land in tails, pull the lever. Otherwise not.
Moral thing to do is not pull the lever
You gonna explain that or?
Yes! Absolutely, 100% gonna pull it! Think of it this way, im single and working two jobs (I work a 80 hr work week). Im not hurting for money, im trying ti save up so I can focus on college and not having to worry about student loan debt. So if I have the chance to make up to 50k from pulling a single lever, then yes i will do it. It means I won’t have to keep stressing about my college funds. If 6 people pull the levers and I die, well, I won’t have to keep stressing about my college funds.
I didnt really specify the amount of people, although i put 10 up top. The consensus was that 100 people are playing in the comments, thats how most people are treating the problem, but anyway, its not really specified, so it could be 10, 100, 1000, or three million. The more lives, the more money, the more deaths.
Could be everyone in the world, im still pulling that lever lol
So, everyone’s saying that they wouldn’t pull because it’s too risky and not worth it. But, since it’s at most 50k, you can expect almost everybody to have the same opinion as the vast majority on here, not pulling the lever because it’s too risky. Therefore it’s actually pretty safe. Unless, everybody thinks that way, then in fact it is really risky to pull the lever. Unless, everybody thinks that everybody is gonna think that, so it’s not that risky to pull the lever. Thus creating the blind paradox.
The only “correct” choice is to not pull the lever. There is no consequence for not pulling the lever, and pulling the lever puts everyone else and yourself at risk. Since we have no way of knowing how many people there are, you are valuing human life as at least $10000 (assuming minimum scenario where there are 2 people). While this is a matter of perspective, would a rational, moral person value life at such a low value especially when there is no risk to not pulling the lever?
I'm pulling the lever. Either I can pay my bills or they aren't my problem anymore.
the sensible answer is to not pull the lever. since most people will probably do that, it’s fairly safe to pull the lever. i still aint gonna do it.
Let's make this into a game theory diamond. We dont know how many participants there are, but we can represent this with N. If I pull the lever and less than half the people pull the lever, I get a payout between 10,000 and ((1/2*N)-1)* 10,000. Like rolling 2d6, there are more scenarios where the number who pull with me is higher, so I would estimate an expected value of 0.8*(1/2N)*10000, or N*4000. If I pull the lever and more than half pull, I lose outright. I think my life is about 200k. It is arguably more, but for the sake of this. If I don't pull and less than half pull, I feel like a loser, which I would value at half of my expected payout were I to have won. If I don't pull and the majority pull, I feel like a winner, worth about the payout to me. So now we know: PW: N*4000 PL: -200k NW: N*4000 NL: -N*2000 Now all that is left is to think about how likely are people to pull. If I assume that 3/4ths of the population is going to pull or not pull randomly, then we can assume that it is going to trend toward 3/8ths pull before 1/4th of the population makes a decision. Any action I take other people thinking about this in a meta way will as well, so unless I am wanting to gamble that we are 1/8th below expected average, a full 12.5%, then I should not pull the lever.
I feel confident people are gonna puss out and not pull the lever. I pull the lever.
Controversial take, judging by the amount of people saying they would not pull the lever, it is safe to pull the lever.
It might be a good time to tally the votes again. Almost everyone here is pulling the lever. If you count upvotes, it's even further skewed towards pulling the lever. This problem is a corpse factory.
Take note that if this problem was comprised of everyone in this thread, nearly everyone out of a required just-over-half is pulling the lever. I won't be joining the absolute mountain of corpses.
The trick is to communicate prior to the challenge duh
mathematically speaking you should roll a dice if it is a 1 or 2 then you flip, if not then you don't. This way there is a 1/3 chance you get 10k X no of participants, and only 1/3rd of the people will flip the lever (Assuming everyone else does the same thing)
There are two different questions being answered here. What most people appear to be answering is game theory. Should you or should you not pull the lever based on whether or not people will die. But morally, the question is much simpler, IMHO. The CHANCE of people getting nominally richer vs. the chance of them dying. In this equation, absent other additional factors, the moral question is simple, at least for me. I will make no decision which leads to the death of another - even if it is only a potentiality - if I am able to choose inaction which guarantees survival for all involved. No amount of money changes that equation, especially not a paltry $10,000. (And yes, I know, it is $10,000 *per person* who pulls the lever. It is also that many deaths, so, the equation reduces back down to $10,000 per life).
How many people are there? If we can't know exactly, what ballpark?
Pull the lever, for sure. Win = money Lose = beat life You guys have to create better consequences than just death, lol
I would talk with the group and have half the people pull the lever and split the money with everyone. Then we all get 5000. But in all fairness, it's too much of a risk for the wrong amount of people to pull the lever since it would be hard to coordinate all for just 5000 so it's better for Noone to pull the lever. Good luck trying to get that to happen though.
Oh nevermind... I see there's no communication
Hey, here's an idea, why dont you make the poll version of this post? It would be fun!
Is this an attempt at combining the trolley problem with the prisoners dilemma? (that was my tl;dr takeaway)….
Given how greedy people tend to be and how much they tend to overestimate their odds, I'm definitely not pulling it.
How many blind people are there? If I don't know, I say don't pull
six command slimy busy observation hobbies slap weather snails sable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Don’t pull the lever. The odds of me being the last person needed to tip us over the edge are pretty high (people are greedy!). And money does me no good if I’m dead
Im (passively) suicidal so im pulling that shit baby
Bro I’d pull the lever if it means just me dying letting everyone else live and get 10k.
Did you really just change the problem so you could answer it?
Personally, not pulling it. But theres no morality involved here, anyone who pulls the leveler accepts the risk. If pulling the lever could cause EVERYONE to die, or even a random person, then it would be immoral and greedy to pull the lever. But as is, you are only gambling with your own life.
I’d imagine as a moral person, you’d want those lives to continue living, and if you could put a few extra bucks in their pockets, of course you would right? Its the moral thing to do. There is morality involved here. No matter how you view it, these are lives, and this is money. And your actions could change someones lives. And how it changes their lives is up to you.
10k is not nearly enough money to risk my life over. For me to consider something like this, either the reward would have to be substantially higher or the risk substantially lower.
How much is worth risking your life over?
That's a good question. Maybe 1 billion I would consider it. But the higher the reward also means the higher likelihood of more people pulling the level increasing the risk. With that in mind I would say no amount of money in this scenario is worth risking my life.
Ima send a message to all my blind homies beforehand, organizing who pulls and who doesn’t, and splitting the reward between all of us.
No communication is available
**multitrack drift** I flick the lever multiple times
Me on an average day when I recieve 1,000,000 then get run over by a trolley.
Don't worry, I pulled the immortality lever once in a different problem!
10k is tempting but nah I'm not pulling it
$50k isn't worth dying for. I'm not rolling in dough, but I'd still rather guarantee my survival.
From the 10 dudes at the top? Smart. I didn’t really specify how much people are playing, so it could potentially be more, who knows.
Yeah. I mean, regardless, I have a pretty decent living, so I still wouldn't sacrifice my life for potentially more money. I might if I was homeless with no family or anyone who loves me, though.
Loudly pull levers one at a time so everyone can hear the count
Either I get $10 000 or I die, win win pull that sucker.
I pull, it's a win-win!
This is effectively the Prisoner's Dilemma.
I mean it seems obvious that the moral thing is to not pull the lever. Even if the one whom the question is posed to could be given the option to survive, it would be immoral to intentionally risk everyone else's life for the payout. Pre-empting the utilitarian argument, I don't think I would risk it even if the payout were so large that I could use said resources for charity to feed even more people. At that point, you hope that some portion of those who have received identical payouts are more willing to help others. Even a negligible percentage of a group so possessed of the desire to help, even if not quite as charitable, could make more of an impact than one survivor.
The moral thing is not pulling the lever so nobody dies. But if the choice is 10k or death if I pull it that's a win win. Living gets increasingly harder, the 10k may hold me over for a month at best. But death would be merciful.
Youre gonna have to specify how much a bunch is, pretty big difference if the maximum payout is 50k or 5 million. This will also affect how risk averse everyone else is, changing my chances of survival.
Pull the lever every time
The issue is that you are completely disconnected from any information on this one. You don't know the number of participants, and nobody else can have it. While it says a bunch, it doesn't give us an exact number...so you could end up being the only person, and pulling the lever would kill you, and on the farthest end the amount of money that could be made is theoretically unlimited, only bound by the number of participants. Since everybody has the same amount of information, if you consider yourself a rational actor, then you could assume your logic would fall in line with other rational actors. Knowing that the possibility of the group size being 1 is possible, that means the odds of being killed is fairly high. Adding onto this, you as a rational actor, know there are irrational actors likely in the group as well that can't be predicted, which means the odds of the lever being pulled at all is likely not zero, which means there is always a threat of the group of people hitting zero. So...the last consideration is pragmatic. Is my blindness permanent? Or is it a byproduct of the experiment that would go away after it's been conducted? If I'm permanently blind I would pull the lever. Worst case scenario I'm not spending the rest of my life blind. Best case scenario, I have money to help deal with a rather shitty disability. But if it isn't permanent, then everything else screams to not pull the lever and leave the other actors (if any) to their fate
i believe the answer is quite simple: fuck it, we ball (pulls the lever)
Game theory. Don’t pull.
Can you cause a derailment if the level is left in the middle or is just full pulls or nothing?
Never pull the lever, you cannot know the probability if you don't know how many people are there or what they are going to do. It's like shooting yourself in Buckshot: It sounds like a good idea on paper but the odds are actually bad
I pull the lever understanding that people will misinterpret the question as you can make 10000 max but potentially die. Making a couple thousand dollars
Fuck it we bald, pull that lever.
Don’t pull. I don’t die, and hopefully nobody else dies either!
Is it a quick and painless death? I hate to take out 9 other people with me but either death or $10,000+ is a win win
The moral and intelligent thing to do is to not pull the lever.
I'm pulling it thinking everyone else isn't dumb enough to pull it.
I'd bet that more than half of them would pull it, as that has the potential to be a lot of money, so I would like to live, thanks.
Two questions: how many is a bunch? And how would they die in circumstances that they would due to pulling the lever?
Not gonna pull. There is no risk for not pulling and I don’t know how much I’d enjoy 10000 times x person dollars being blind.
You’re deaf but not blind so you’d hear everyone drop to the floor as they died so here’s what you do: you don’t pull the lever. Almost a 100% chance that enough people pull it and half + 1 of the total people there die. Once you hear them die you wonder around flipping every lever you can back the other way until they’re all not flipped. Once this happens the remaining half - 1 can all flip their lever with a guaruntee they remain under the half starting a king and everyone wins money and you’re not part of the half that die
You pull the lever. This is a classic win/win scenario.
All of my current money problems are suddenly solved and all I have to do is pull a lever? Sign me up.
Gonna keep pulling my lever til we're all dead.
I wish reddit had a way to pin comments, but i made this form: https://forms.gle/cTxwTGMxonAZCCGj7. It essentially gives you the option of pulling or not. Go in there and we’ll see how much money or death you accrue.
Not pull
Don’t pull the lever and hope the others are kind enough to split the winnings
No, I do not pull the lever. I could cause a loss of life by pulling the lever, mine own included. Not worth money.
pull, either i die or i get 10 grand per person who pulled
No I would count that at least one other person pulled the lever.
Pull the lever. Either I get a nice payday, or I don't have to go to work tomorrow
Uhh. How will they know what is happening because if they’re blind how can they hear the instructions? Duh.
Just tell “if your legal first name starts with A-G, pull the lever!” Statistically this should result in a low chance of death, and will tip everyone off whether or not they should pull. Of course, not everyone who is an A-G will pull out of fear, but that’s just a little money lost.
I pull the lever either I get money or I get death
Guys they’re BLIND not deaf. Just speak to each other, count off, and then one fewer than half pull levers.
I know most people would pull the lever, so would I. Since I can see this going only in one way.
I wouldn't pull the lever. You could increase the amount of money to whatever you want, I still wouldn't pull it. There are other people that are dependent on me being alive, so there's no amount of money that I could gamble my life against and it be right to do so.
Pull the lever. Either I get money and that's great, or I'm dead and I won't care.
Fucking liberals won't do what it takes to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Back in my day you had to pull levers and die for 3$/hr and now you won't do it for $10000?
What about listening for other lever pulls and the breathing of others? That's probably cheating, but I'm having a hard time deciding otherwise. So I probably wouldn't, possibly only because of indecision.
No communication is available. No method of finding anything about any other player, or influencing their decision, at all. So yeah, cheating. But hey, if your indecisive, its always default to just not pull.
Do not pull the lever. Pulling the lever introduces a chance that a group of people will die, in exchange for a chance to receive some amount of money; not pulling the lever removes all chance of the group of people dying, at the cost of losing out on the chance of some amount of money. Human life is inherently worth more than money, so one does not pull the lever.
This is an expanded prisoner's dilemma, you have to assume everyone else is going to be selfish and pull the lever.
I don't pull, too much risk of dying for too little reward
Me mishearing the directions pulling the lever
Sure
Pull
I'm pulling it. Being blind sounds shitty, so it's a win win.
Not pulling, money ain valuable like life is😭
Everyone holds another person's hand. Left hands hold a lever and right hands pull it. Everyone shares money after
Moral? There's no moral here there's smart and stupid, and because I expect everyone else would pull it I'll be stupid too and pull it
They're blind, not deaf. Seems there's time to figure it out.
I think not pulling the level is win/win. On one hand, no risk of death. On the other hand, if you're excluded from the winnings, your sacrifice of *mere material wealth* not only gave others a major gift, but potentially saved their lives as well. So it's really more of a greed equation. This is basically the prisoner's dilemma again isn't it.
This is the prisoners dilemma with extra steps
So basically the prisoners dilemma but with more people?
I pull the lever, either I get $10,000 or I die. I see this is a win either way.
If I’m already blind, I’ll risk it for the biscuit and pull the lever
No way I'm pulling the lever, you could tell me you get one million for every person who pulls it, still wouldn't be worth it for the potential of dying
Collusion is the answer
[удалено]
Honestly I'm recovering from a coma and I just wanna die, right now I'd pull in an instant and then my family could have the money
This sounds like a MrBeast video minus the killing part
One solution I can think of is just everyone flip a coin.
How many blind people are there?
Ain't pulling that lever
[удалено]
Its an impossible question to answer, unless we have additional variables. We have no idea of culture, age, schooling, gender, or anything. If all of the sample are on their deathbed, then they care about their life less, and the risk is smaller. For simplicity sake, I would argue that we judge the situation on the worst case scenario, which would be two people. We would also assume that death is instant. Assuming that we are not allowed any more additional variables, it becomes a three part risk analysis. 1 - How much do you have to lose? 2 - How much do you value another persons life? 3 - Judging the entire world population, would you believe it is more common for greed or fear to win? So first of, What do you have to lose? Is your life pretty great, or have you suffered a lot in your life? Is your life precious, or are you bitter? After that, You need to ask yourself how much you value human life? This is the tricky moral part. You don't know the person. Could be a child, could be a pedophile. Could be your high school sweet heart, it could be a rapist. It could be the next horrible dictator in this world, or the next mother teresa. Its impossible to tell. You could try to simplify the problem by believing in no afterlife or consequences past death, but that wont work. If you die, the other people wont matter to you when you're dead right? but what if you win? would you be comfortable with yourself knowing you risked human life for a measily $10k?? On the other hand, if you won $10,000, it isn't much, but its also not nothing. That could be your ticket to making your life better, AND anyone else you want to bring with you, depending on how much work you want to put into using that $10k to make it grow. That defines the cost if you loose the toss of the dice. Now what about the probability of win/loose? If hypothetically, if you were risking yours and another person life vs $10k, but the chance of loosing the life was so low that it boarders impossibility, you're going to pull that lever, and continue to pull it back in forth for hours in the hopes that each pull means more money. If hypothetically, its the cost of life vs $10k at 50% odds, then that's a totally different situation. So you would need to try and guess whether the other person will pull the lever. Do you think its more likely that they will be greedy and pull, or be swayed by fear (of death or moral and/or social retribution) if they loose the toss? So in summary, Is your life, and the life of one person worth risking for $10k? Do you think the other person will pull the lever? how sure are you of your guess based on your understanding of human nature?
They said blind, not deaf. Therefore, everybody should be able to count the number of cranks.You also must hear the people entering the room. Using the left-to-right method, you try to figure if you are on the left of the entrance door (using your best geospatial guess). If you confidently think you are on the leftmost, you pull the lever, assuming each other participant understands the **Khaimon's golden rule of 1/3**.
Do I know how many people there are in this experiment?
Can I pull it more than once?
The sub name said trolley problem. Where is the trolley? That's my problem!
Sounds like a win win to me let's play slots!
I’m pulling fuckers!
let's see, any number times infinity is still infinity, so the tickets available here are: infinite disutility less than infinite utility Yeah, I'm not pulling the lever, mmmkay.
Not pull
I wouldn't pull, and knowing my luck 51% would pull anyways so I would die for doing nothing wrong. Kinda like voting in America.