Consequentialist ethics and probability

[Zero]

Most ethical dillemas relate to either/or situations in which one course of actions will lead to one set of consequences. In the real world, however, things are almost never that certain for the future. The future necessarily involves uncertainties.. some things are more likely than others to occur.

I'm not going to give a situation or context, since that generally allows people to cheat, but I will give the general situation: If you don't kill a man, there's a 1/5 chance that he'll kill 6 people. What is the ethical decision?

This is something that I've been wondering about for a while. I would kill the guy, since if there are five chances and six people, on average that's 1.2 for each chance, which is greater than the 1 I'd kill to prevent the possibility from ever arising. However, I'm certainly open to consideration if someone can explain why my rationalization is bullshit.

[rhoenix]

I remember Zero asking this in the chat, and I was for some reason idled out, and unable to complete my point there. However, making my point here allows me more time to properly formulate my thoughts.

My first thought is that because this is about human life, one must have excellent reasoning to justify killing someone based on a 20% probability. I'm not seeing how an average is gained, since the other probability is zero people dying - 20% that six people will die, 80% that nobody will.

Therefore, my answer of "no."

This is, of course, setting aside my misgivings about how the statistic stating that there is a 20% that this individual will kill precisely six people was gained in the first place, and what fashion the individual will murder with (intent was not stated - since it was not, this has the possibility of being everything from cold-blooded murder to driving himself and five family members off a cliff on accident).

Even if these questions were answered definitively enough so that the original question stands as it is, with fully supportive and confirmed evidence, I'd still say no. A 20% probability that six people will die is not enough reason to end one individual's life with 100% certainty, in my mind.

[bilateralrope]

I said no simply because of the possible ramifacations to myself, since I see nothing to mitigate the fact that I would be murdering the guy.

If someone used that reasoning for killing someone, personally I feel that they would also be guilty of murder. Even if you could convince me that killing the guy is the ethical choice, I would not be willing to throw my life away with the punishment I would recieve afterwards from the legal system. (wouldn't that also make 2 lives ruined, the guy you killed, and yours from your prison sentence ?)

[Sriad]

Probably. It depends on the specifics of the situation, which is a weak-sauce answer, but the truth. If there were another way of stopping Mystery Maybe Killer (shoot him in the knee? Tazer him and sit on his head until the cops arrive?) I'd take that first.

[Noble Ire]

I'd say it depends upon the situation, too. If the guy is intent on murdering six people, but is simply extremely incompetent, I'd probably kill him, but if the circumtances are different, my choice might be too. I can't really pick out potential circumstances, though; to me, this is one of those "you can only know if you have to do it" situations.

[Zero]

(wouldn't that also make 2 lives ruined, the guy you killed, and yours from your prison sentence ?)

I've always decided that my life was my own to throw away, so I didn't include it in the dillema. For others, though, I can see why this could shift whether it's the right choiuce or not, since our own future should also be taken into account for ethics.

I'm not seeing how an average is gained, since the other probability is zero people dying - 20% that six people will die, 80% that nobody will.

An average is gained in exactly that way... there are five chances, and in one of them, six people die. Six potential deaths out of five chances. 6/5. 1.2 people would die on average if the situation of 1/5 odds of 6 people dying came up infinite times.

This is, of course, setting aside my misgivings about how the statistic stating that there is a 20% that this individual will kill precisely six people was gained in the first place, and what fashion the individual will murder with (intent was not stated - since it was not, this has the possibility of being everything from cold-blooded murder to driving himself and five family members off a cliff on accident).

These things were all intentionally excluded, since they generally allow people to figure out a way out of the ethical dillema, which kind of defeats the point of actually having one.

[Zero]

ghetto edit:

To bilateralrope: Of course, a prison sentince is significantly different from death, so it wouldn't be as if two people were killed if you got caught.

The second two quotes were also from rhoenix (trying to avoid confusion).

[Mad]

I've always decided that my life was my own to throw away, so I didn't include it in the dillema. For others, though, I can see why this could shift whether it's the right choiuce or not, since our own future should also be taken into account for ethics.

Of course, 2 lives ruined (death or death penalty/prison for life) is greater than the 1.2 lives on average, so not killing him is the safer option based on your OP. With an 80% chance of nothing happening, then there's a good chance that nobody dies at all as a result of not killing him.

[Zero]

Of course, 2 lives ruined (death or death penalty/prison for life) is greater than the 1.2 lives on average, so not killing him is the safer option based on your OP. With an 80% chance of nothing happening, then there's a good chance that nobody dies at all as a result of not killing him.

You're making several assumptions here.

1. You're going to get caught.
2. You're going to necessarily either get life in prison or death.
3. Life in prison is equal to death ethically.

1 and 2 aren't necessarily true, and 3 is debateable.

[Mad]

You're making several assumptions here.

The OP didn't give enough details to specify what the consequences to me would be. So why should I not assume I would have to murder the man in cold blood with all the consequences that come with such an action?

[Soontir C'boath]

Unless I catch him before he commits murder (in which I won't know with the OP not specifying), I won't do it simply for the fact that I won't know if my action of injuring or murdering him will save the victims' lives ie I voted no.

By choosing yes to killing this person, I must have a fortitude of sanity in order to convince myself that I'd done the right thing without verification. What if he never reach his victims if the police manages to capture him, et al and my killing him would be pointless? It's one of the reasons why police do not like vigilantes. They go too far.

Another thing, killing someone could be very psychologically jarring being that you have taken someone's life even if it is a potential murderer. With that, I don't think I can live with myself.

It does sound selfish that I should also care for my own well-being but I have to face with what little I know too.

On the other hand if I don't, and he kills someone, I'd still be emotionally scarred anyway since I didn't do anything to stop him...
______
I discussed this with a friend of my and she basically said this wasn't a dilemma at all and to "screw the six others"...

[Zero]

You're making several assumptions here.

The OP didn't give enough details to specify what the consequences to me would be. So why should I not assume I would have to murder the man in cold blood with all the consequences that come with such an action?

I didn't say you shouldn't, but getting caught and getting either life in prison or death don't necessarily follow cold blooded murder.

[Kuroneko]

Assuming nothing about the kinds of lives the participants of this scenario will lead, the probabilistic expected value favors killing the one person. However, the question of which choice is rational is less clear. While it may be tempting to associate maximum expectation with the most rational choice, there are various situations in which things are a bit more complicated. Consider the fact that insurance companies generally make money. From this observation, one can conclude that on average, people would have more money without insurance than with it, and so, insurance has a negative expectation on average. This suggests that having insurance is irrational.

Of course, there are some mitigating circumstances in the above scenario. So, as a more hypothetical example, Zero has chosen to kill the person. For this grave offence, suppose that he is condemned into Hell, where he will experience an eternity of suffering (value: negative infinity). The Devil comes to him with a special coin, which Zero has the option of flipping, such that he will be free from all suffering and pleasure if it lands on heads (value: zero). The rules of the game are that (1) Zero can only flip the coin once, and (2) the coin starts out having 1/2 chance of tails, with this probability decreased by a factor of two for each day Zero does not flip the coin. It's certainly advisable to wait some time, to increase the chances of becoming free, but on each day, the expected value of actually flipping is still negative infinity (eternal suffering), while not flipping is only a day of suffering. But taking the chance on every day is clearly absurd. Therefore, there must be other considerations than just expected value to determine which choice is the most rational.

[Mad]

I didn't say you shouldn't, but getting caught and getting either life in prison or death don't necessarily follow cold blooded murder.

It's a real enough possibility that I have to consider it. What if I end up turning myself in later on? Even if I don't get life, me and my family is still very adversely affected.

Even if I could be assured that I wouldn't personally suffer any consequences for my action, I still wouldn't kill the man because there's an 80% chance that nobody dies.

This isn't a repeating event, so you can't be sure you are saving lives. (If you had a 100 people who each had a 20% chance of killing 6 people, then you'd have a case that you might be able to save a net of 20 lives.)

[bilateralrope]

Of course, 2 lives ruined (death or death penalty/prison for life) is greater than the 1.2 lives on average, so not killing him is the safer option based on your OP. With an 80% chance of nothing happening, then there's a good chance that nobody dies at all as a result of not killing him.

You're making several assumptions here.

1. You're going to get caught.
2. You're going to necessarily either get life in prison or death.
3. Life in prison is equal to death ethically.

1 and 2 aren't necessarily true, and 3 is debateable.

As I see it the prison sentance only needs to be ethically equlivent to greater than 0.2 of a persons death in order to tip the scales in favor of not killing the guy. This makes me think that even if I was somehow assured that I would only get a manslaughter conviction, it wouldn't be worth it once you take into the effects it would have on my life after I get released.

[Zero]

It's a real enough possibility that I have to consider it. What if I end up turning myself in later on? Even if I don't get life, me and my family is still very adversely affected.

It is a real enough possibility. So is the possibility of six people dying. And their family/friends/coworkers/whoever will be adversely affected by their loss, possibly moreso than your family and friends would be affected by you being in prison.

Even if I could be assured that I wouldn't personally suffer any consequences for my action, I still wouldn't kill the man because there's an 80% chance that nobody dies.

But the other 20% has consequences that are worth that other 80%, at least near as I can tell.

This isn't a repeating event, so you can't be sure you are saving lives.

That's pretty much the point. It's very rare that you'll be certain of the effects of an action in the real world, and the fact that the future is always uncertain had always been one thing I considered to be a potential weakness of consequentialist ethical systems. The entire point is the uncertainty, and how the cost/benefit analysis system we typically use to solve such dillemas ('If I don't kill a man, he WILL kill 6' people is much more obvious, for instance, since 6 is greater than 1) changes when we include uncertainty.

As I see it the prison sentance only needs to be ethically equlivent to greater than 0.2 of a persons death in order to tip the scales in favor of not killing the guy. This makes me think that even if I was somehow assured that I would only get a manslaughter conviction, it wouldn't be worth it once you take into the effects it would have on my life after I get released.

Yes, it really depends on how you weigh the effects on your life and the lives of those around you vs. 1/5th the cost of a man dying.

Assuming nothing about the kinds of lives the participants of this scenario will lead, the probabilistic expected value favors killing the one person. However, the question of which choice is rational is less clear. While it may be tempting to associate maximum expectation with the most rational choice, there are various situations in which things are a bit more complicated. Consider the fact that insurance companies generally make money. From this observation, one can conclude that on average, people would have more money without insurance than with it, and so, insurance has a negative expectation on average. This suggests that having insurance is irrational.

I'll admit that this is a specific example I hadn't considered. So far, I'd been thinking about what the equivalent choice would be if you were gambling. Still, on the matter of insurance companies, if my personal financial status is such that the smaller chance of something bad happening and the consequences that go with it would be worse than is negated by the greater probability that nothing will happen, then getting insurance is smart from a personal standpoint.

I mean, if I'm going to be completely and totally fucked without home insurance if somethng happens to my home. Even if that'll only happen maybe 1/1000 times, being completely fucked is bad from more than just a financial perspective, so it still might outweigh the other 999 chances where all I'm giving away is money.

Still, this is a point I hadn't considered, and more thought is certainly required on the matter.

*snip* Therefore, there must be other considerations than just expected value to determine which choice is the most rational.

But are there any specific ideas on what exactly these considerations ARE? This is what my primary curiousity on this matter relates to.

[bilateralrope]

It is a real enough possibility. So is the possibility of six people dying. And their family/friends/coworkers/whoever will be adversely affected by their loss, possibly moreso than your family and friends would be affected by you being in prison.
<snip>

As I see it the prison sentance only needs to be ethically equlivent to greater than 0.2 of a persons death in order to tip the scales in favor of not killing the guy. This makes me think that even if I was somehow assured that I would only get a manslaughter conviction, it wouldn't be worth it once you take into the effects it would have on my life after I get released.

Yes, it really depends on how you weigh the effects on your life and the lives of those around you vs. 1/5th the cost of a man dying.

Since the lives of the family/friends/etc will also be effected by he deaths, I'm now also doubting that that the life of the person I could kill has the same value as the people he may kill. If the situations of those involved are extreeme enough, you might even be able to argue that the potential killers life is worth more than the lives of the six others combinded, but this would have to be a really extreeme case if its even a possible situation. So it all comes down to measuing how much someones quality of life is worth compared to anothers. As I don't feel that such measurements are even possible, I'm thinking that the math calculations don't hold.

Still, my choice for not killing the guy is entierly selfish. I'm just trying to ethically justify it.

[Mad]

It is a real enough possibility. So is the possibility of six people dying. And their family/friends/coworkers/whoever will be adversely affected by their loss, possibly moreso than your family and friends would be affected by you being in prison.

And possibly less so. It's another factor we don't know.

But the other 20% has consequences that are worth that other 80%, at least near as I can tell.

So you'd take the life of a potentially innocent man based on limited information about what he might have the opportunity to do. How can you do that when you don't know how complete your information is?

By your logic, then if I told you that if a man continues living, over 200,000 innocent people will die, you'd kill him to let those people live.

That's pretty much the point. It's very rare that you'll be certain of the effects of an action in the real world, and the fact that the future is always uncertain had always been one thing I considered to be a potential weakness of consequentialist ethical systems. The entire point is the uncertainty, and how the cost/benefit analysis system we typically use to solve such dillemas ('If I don't kill a man, he WILL kill 6' people is much more obvious, for instance, since 6 is greater than 1) changes when we include uncertainty.

It'd be a very scary society to live in, at least to me. If a cost/benefit analysis were done factoring in the probability of you doing something wrong ended up saying that jailing you/killing you would prevent something from happening, then you could be jailed/killed without doing anything wrong. Would you feel safer living in such a society? After all, less people are affected because it's a continual process and so things average out to less people being affected by crimes/accidents.

Which is more valued: safety of the masses or personal freedoms? That's also something that has to be factored in to the cost/benefit approach.

Since the lives of the family/friends/etc will also be effected by he deaths, I'm now also doubting that that the life of the person I could kill has the same value as the people he may kill. If the situations of those involved are extreeme enough, you might even be able to argue that the potential killers life is worth more than the lives of the six others combinded, but this would have to be a really extreeme case if its even a possible situation. So it all comes down to measuing how much someones quality of life is worth compared to anothers. As I don't feel that such measurements are even possible, I'm thinking that the math calculations don't hold.

We're not given that information, of course. We're also not given information on the way he will kill those people. Were the deaths to be an accident or a result of something he did that he had no control over? Was he about to be hired out of a pool of 5 people to become an executioner for the state and those 6 people were on death row? Is he a soldier who would kill 6 enemy soldiers if the 20% chance that he were deployed occured? A police officer with a 20% chance of being on duty during a shootout with criminals?

Would somebody else still kill those people if he were taken out of the picture? Perhaps he worked for the mob and another mobster would make the hit if he didn't.

Or maybe there's a 20% chance he'll lose his job during downsizing and then go to the office and open fire.

Of course, we're not given any of this. But we must also consider the possibility that the deaths he would cause would not be legal.

Or he could potentially be a simple murderer.

Could one ethically or morally make the decision to kill him without knowing which, though?

[Zero]

So you'd take the life of a potentially innocent man based on limited information about what he might have the opportunity to do. How can you do that when you don't know how complete your information is?

In this instance, assuming the information given is true, you really do have the information you ought to need to decide, from a consequences-oriented POV, what you should do.

By your logic, then if I told you that if a man continues living, over 200,000 innocent people will die, you'd kill him to let those people live.

If you told me this, and you could actually explain why it was true, give evidence and all that, then yes, killing him to let 200,000 innocent people live would be the right thing to do. Why wouldn't it?

Could one ethically or morally make the decision to kill him without knowing which, though?

Assuming nothing more than the information given, we must assume that those mentioned are average people, since we have no further information on them. We may not know the specific reasons involved in their death, but that's why the thread title mentioned consequentialist ethics specifically. Consequentialist ethical systems are focussed on the consequences instead of the intent, or even the action itself.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, Zero, sometimes consequentialist ethics doesn't deal only with a specific act. Act Utilitarianism has a lot of problems, because sometimes, even though the action can technically yield utility for all directly involved, it's not something one would want to make a rule out of since it would likely set a dangerous precedent.

In those cases, it would be superior to follow a general utility rule that, in the long run, promoted the most "good consequences" even though that it might not in every case.

Someone above mentioned the issue of safety over freedom in the cost-benefit analyis; this is why context is important, since it really wouldn't be in the safety interests of anyone if the State or its people took it into their hands to kill or lock up people who might have a small chance of doing something to others. That could happen to anyone, and that would be very difficult to predict. If we allowed that as a general rule, who is safe, really? Anyone can be next. That wouldn't be a very desirable society, so it really shouldn't be allowed.

You cannot punish people for what you think they might do, maybe, because that sets a dangerous precedent, especially if you are going vigilantee style. Vigilantee justice, which might be well-intended, isn't a good rule to allow if we apply it so that anyoen can do it in the same percieved circumstances.

It doesn't seem like many people here think 20% is all that great of a chance. I don't really know. It seems low, but I don't really know much about statistics.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit:

I should probably ask for my own education and reference, what makes the most important aspect of the decision? Is it the consequences that might happen or the level of probability?

Say we are in situation X. There's a small chance X will happen, let's say 4% (if that is indeed small). If theres 's a 4% chance a car part could be defective and kill 5,000 people, do we change it even though there's a 96% chance of it being ok?

Or let's change it. Let's say you had a 4% chance of winning the county lottery and 10,000 dollars respectively, would you pay 500 to play?

I was reading a study in psychology that said people tend to make irrational decisions when dealing with probability--I will dig it up, but it seemed as if they were saying people are not consistant in their choices when it comes to probability and it alters depending on if they are gaining or losing something based on the probability.

Some people acted if they were gaining, even though there was a small chance of X happening, but didn't shy away from something bad if there was an equally small chance of something happening.

[Mad]

In this instance, assuming the information given is true, you really do have the information you ought to need to decide, from a consequences-oriented POV, what you should do.

The only decision I can make in this case is to not intervene, as I am not given enough information to determine that he should die.

If you told me this, and you could actually explain why it was true, give evidence and all that, then yes, killing him to let 200,000 innocent people live would be the right thing to do. Why wouldn't it?

Your situation didn't give me that information. How do I know there's a 20% chance that he will kill 6 people? What happens if he doesn't kill them?

I can tell you the consequences if the 200,000+ do not die as a result of this person if you can tell me the consequences of the man not killing those 6 people. Of course, if you can't tell me that, then I can't tell you what happens in my scenario.

Do you want to kill the person, or do you need more information first?

Assuming nothing more than the information given, we must assume that those mentioned are average people, since we have no further information on them. We may not know the specific reasons involved in their death, but that's why the thread title mentioned consequentialist ethics specifically. Consequentialist ethical systems are focussed on the consequences instead of the intent, or even the action itself.

Didn't you just want to know why those 200,000+ people would die?

A person who has a 20% chance of killing 6 people is not an average person. (Some statistics in what kind of person that description could fit, and thus the average person in that type of situation, and the average target, could be useful. I haven't been able to find any as of yet.)

If we're going to do a cost/benefit analysis, I need to know what could happen (cost and/or benefit) if the 6 people live or if the man dies. Do they die anyway? Do they kill more people? If we're trying to minimize killings in the long run, then this information is needed.

It doesn't seem like many people here think 20% is all that great of a chance. I don't really know. It seems low, but I don't really know much about statistics.

A higher percentage but less people dying would be more interesting. What if it were an 80% chance of him killing 2 people? That's an average of 1.6 people dying if the man is not killed, or a guaranteed 1 if he is. Do you kill him for what he has a good chance of doing even though he hasn't done it yet?

[Zero]

Say we are in situation X. There's a small chance X will happen, let's say 4% (if that is indeed small). If theres 's a 4% chance a car part could be defective and kill 5,000 people, do we change it even though there's a 96% chance of it being ok?

In that case, absolutely. Even though the odds are small, 5000 people is a lot of people, and there aren't really any long-term negative consequences of changing the car part, at least from what you've stated so far.

Or let's change it. Let's say you had a 4% chance of winning the county lottery and 10,000 dollars respectively, would you pay 500 to play?

No, because in that situation, you only have a 1/25 chance of winning, so the cost would have to at least be below $400. However, even if it were 100, I probably wouldn't, so it's still a valid point.

You cannot punish people for what you think they might do, maybe, because that sets a dangerous precedent, especially if you are going vigilantee style. Vigilantee justice, which might be well-intended, isn't a good rule to allow if we apply it so that anyoen can do it in the same percieved circumstances.

This makes more sense to me. Not comitting the action because it sets a dangerous precident that will bring about more negatives than positives is a sensible reason for rejecting my decision of killing the person.


I also concede that in the example given, you can't necessarily decide what long-term consequences may result, since you don't know enough about the lives of the six individuals or the potential killer.