8 ms·

Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.

60 points by e1ven 16y ago

hltan 16y ago
Why is this so hard? The law clearly states, if you do nothing you are free. If you do something, you have taken the liability of said action. Unless by doing nothing, you are in violation of your duty. But still I would gladly accept an administrative slap, than a legal one... 100 people or not.
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  ...clearly, a utilitarian argument.
  - hltan 16y ago
    don't you love it when the rules are so simple?
    - jmatthews 16y ago
      Which brings up another issue with the study. If you use the "rational actors" canard of Econ101. Everyone asked is trying to maximize their economic utility. So the opportunity cost of inaction beats action. The study should at least require some form of action of roughly equal cost(liabilities and pyhsical action) to occur in order to zero out this input. I'd also like to rebuff the "action == moral code" statement. There is nothing more common than action that flies in the face of your moral code. Thus the "let he who is without sin" truism. Effecting a utilitarian outcome despite your moral code does not make it moral in the eyes of the person acting, and it can denote either courage or cowardice.
lukev 16y ago
Key quote from the article (IMHO): "The idea is not that people are or are not utilitarian; it’s that they will cite being utilitarian when it behooves them. People are aren’t using these principles and then applying them. They arrive at a judgement and seek a principle."
- philwelch 16y ago
  The real joke is that philosophers do this, too. If your ethical theory doesn't quite fit with people's moral intuitions, most philosophers will argue that, in itself, is a problem with the theory. This is why I don't put much stock in ethical theory--if intuition is a good enough moral guide that we use it to refute ethical theories, why do we need a theory? More damningly, on what other grounds can we possibly criticize an ethical theory?
  - lukev 16y ago
    Well, I think the search for an ethical theory is still valid. That's one of the main exercises of philosophy, taking a lot of particular data points (in this case, moral intuitions) and trying to find some overarching pattern or system. Just because we haven't found a consistent one yet (or even if such a system does not exist) it doesn't mean the search isn't worthwhile.
- rdouble 16y ago
  The book "Ill Gotten Gains" by Leo Katz explores this subject in depth from the perspective of a lawyer. His thesis is that libertarianism can not be founded on utilitarianism, rather, it must have (and does) have a deontological foundation. It's a must read for anyone who finds this sort of thing interesting. http://www.amazon.com/Ill-Gotten-Gains-Evasion-Blackmail-Kindred/dp/0226425940 http://www.amazon.com/Ill-Gotten-Gains-Evasion-Blackmail-Kin...
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    Looks interesting. I just ordered a used copy.
- raganwald 16y ago
  Of course I cannot speak for people on HN, but this has been my anecdotal experience. People cite all sort sof utilitarian justifications for believing in the absolute power of free markets, or of democracy, or of paying lower taxes, or whatever. I'm certainly representative. I like having the government provide my children's health care and enjoy living in a safe city. What a shocking surprise, I advocate those principles that I perceive (rightly or wrongly) as providing me with the things I like.
jdrock 16y ago
I call BS on the test. Interesting. You state that Casey Jones should divert the train, yet this will cause the death of the person trapped on the railway siding. This seems to be inconsistent with your belief that it is always wrong to cause another person's death. It is somewhat perplexing that you responded this way, since you do not believe that this course of action is necessiated by any general moral requirement to maximise the happiness of the greatest number of people. More of this later. For now, let's see what you make of the scenario below. Choosing to let 1 person die so that 5 can live does not mean I find that action moral. It's simply the better of two options.
- Psyonic 16y ago
  That's a pretty simplistic view, no? You don't believe causing a death is different than not preventing other deaths? Or perhaps it is different, but there is a certain moral penalty for letting a person die, and this is less than the moral penalty for letting 5 die? What if instead of 5, it was just a pregnant woman (1.5?) Admittedly, that question isn't my favorite, as both options are relatively passive. How do you feel about the situations where a more active role is required? Would you push the man over the railing to save 5?
- sp332 16y ago
  It's simply the better of two options. You feel this way, but many people will avoid switching the train. The point of the experiments is to see if (statistically) more or fewer people are willing to switch the train based on the race of the people involved.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  That is a moral code. The whole point of the question is whether your code is absolute: can you kill someone if the alternative is worse, or can you absolutely not kill someone regardless of the alternative?
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    Sometimes the thing that has to die, is my moral code. Of course we must save the most people; of course it is immoral, and my immortal sould will suffer, but I am only one person and its worth it.
Psyonic 16y ago
I read an interesting paper on this phenomenon years ago (that we use morality to justify, not reason). A summary (not written by me): According to Haidt's (2001) social intuitionist model (SIM), an individual's moral judgment normally arises from automatic 'moral intuitions'. Private moral reasoning—when it occurs—is biased and post hoc, serving to justify the moral judgment determined by the individual's intuitions. http://www.mc.edu/campus/academics/BIO/emotional%20dog%20rational%20tail.pdf http://www.mc.edu/campus/academics/BIO/emotional%20dog%20rat...
autarch 16y ago
Another flaw in this sort of study is that there's an enormous disconnect between what we say we would do, and what we would actually do. I might say "yes, I would push Chip/Tyrone over the rail", because I really do believe that's the best thing to do. But if I were actually faced with that dilemma and had to murder someone, could I do it?
- zacharycohn 16y ago
  Maybe! It depends on the circumstances... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
- notahacker 16y ago
  It doesn't account for the likelihood that my actions fail to save anyone and simply increase the death toll either, which would be a paralysing fear for many people in real life. This particular scenario seems an odd one because I simply can't conceive a situation in which I could ever be confident a falling fat man would stop a moving train. My instinct would surely be to trust everything I'd previously learned about the laws of physics.
- marcinw 16y ago
  Why not just ask Chip or Tyrone whether they feel their lives are worth losing to save a hundred others?
  - notahacker 16y ago
    If someone asked me that I'd push them over the edge!
- smallblacksun 16y ago
  There's also the fact that you would be making a complete guess that the man was large enough to stop the trolley in real life, and if he wasn't you would simply be adding another victim. Besides, a man large enough to stop a trolley would be really hard to push.
iuyhgtfvgbhjn 16y ago
That explains the behavior of all the drivers as I cycle to work. They are all moral philosophers and believe that by killing me they provide donor organs to save 6 others. Maybe I need a cycling top that says "I don't carry a donor card"
- rdouble 16y ago
  This version of the "trolley" thought experiment is explored in the book I mentioned in a previous post. It turns out people will not choose to steer a trolley of people needing organ replacements into a healthy potential organ donor. Thus, most people really aren't utilitarians, even if they claim to be. Unfortunately, one of the chemical processes in the brain reverses this attitude when someone prone to road rage spies a cyclist. A typical response is that these sorts of mental games are silly, but how people answer these questions actually forms the basis of legal systems throughout the world.
  - iuyhgtfvgbhjn 16y ago
    We used to use the "would you kill a jogger for his organs" question on smug medical student applicants - those who wanted to be doctors "to help people". Another good question is ask them why they don't become civil engineers - good drains save a lot more people than doctors ever did.
- Tyr42 16y ago
  I remember watching a documentary where they found that drivers are much more likely to cut off cyclists wearing helmets than those without helmets. They also measured things like average distance between car and bike when passing. If people see you not wearing a helmet they assume that you are unsafe and will stay further away from you.
  - btilly 16y ago
    A friend of mine got access to the traffic accident statistics for Connecticut for several years. He found that it was safer to use smack than to ride a bike. If I remember correctly he also found that in the event of a reported accident, a bicyclist had a 15% chance of a "life-altering event". (For instance you might live, but never walk normally again.) After that he gave up biking and switched to tennis.
reader5000 16y ago
Xenophobia is a well-known behavioral trait, this study seems to indicate xenophilia exists as well (i.e., Americans being more accepting of American causalities than Iraqi).
- amh 16y ago
  It bugs me when stuff like that is described as "xenophobia". It's possible to dislike something (or have a preference for the alternative) without fearing it. Even when the basis for the dislike is irrational -- if you prefer chocolate ice cream does that imply that you fear strawberry?
  - MartinCron 16y ago
    The -phobia suffix doesn't indicate fear exclusively, it's also used to describe profound distaste and dislike. Just like with homophobia, One doesn't have to be specifically afraid of gay people to be homophobic, though that is often the case.
sprout 16y ago
I find the bit about Iraqis vs. Americans a bit superficial. As a liberal, I would consider collateral damage less of a problem when Americans die because all Americans are responsible for the present situation in Iraq, while most Iraqis are innocent bystanders. I view this as utilitarian: if people who start wars have a greater chance of death than people who don't start wars, this should in theory decrease the incidence of war. Similarly, when we talk about Tyrone vs. Chip, this is a question of a poor man vs. a rich man. But more to the point, "Chip Ellsworth III" evokes a sterotype of the rich Connecticut blueblood, a parasite aristocrat. A much more interesting study would actually look at people in different clothes, with different skin tones. This just measures people's reaction to someone whose father was overly proud of his lineage and is likely a rich socialite. Obviously this says something about my politics, but again it doesn't necessarily say anything vis-a-vis deontology vs. utilitarianism. Again, my impression of the name "Chip" is that he's a worthless individual who contributes nothing to society. However, even if we assume that both are model citizens, it stands to reason that the death of the hypothetical lower-class black man is going to put his family through significant hardship, while Chip's family has enough money that mostly people will be getting a sudden unexpected influx of cash. So the question really becomes: kill one man, or kill one man and ruin his family's chance at a decent life.
- defen 16y ago
  If you're going to play the odds and assume the blueblood is a "parasite", shouldn't you also assume that the lower-class black man is not present to support his family anyway?
  - sprout 16y ago
    Please finish reading my comment.
    - defen 16y ago
      I didn't mean in your response to the hypothetical question ('assume each is a model citizen') - I meant in real life: "my impression of the name "Chip" is that he's a worthless individual who contributes nothing to society."
dusklight 16y ago
I think it's important to point out that the names chosen are not only denotations of race, they are denotations of class. Maybe instead of the liberals feeling better about killing the white guy to save the black guys, they feel better about killing the rich guy to save the poor guys. There is a tendency to conflate class issues with race issues in America, and I think that really muddles the debate somewhat.
- trjordan 16y ago
  There is a tendency to conflate the two because they are strongly correlated. It's not a mistake to assume that Tyrone is poor and black and Chip is rich and white -- it's a best guess based on observations about reality in the US. Does it make it absolutely moral to make that assumption? Of course not, people should be treated without regard to previous biases, etc. But it doesn't mean the statistical inference is invalid.
  - ryanpetrich 16y ago
    Chip Ellsworth III sounds distinctly aristocratic. Another "white-sounding" name could be chosen that doesn't have that quality.
btilly 16y ago
Here is what I think is going on. First, you're putting people in a position where they are on the boundaries of what they consider acceptable. Anything that affects those boundaries, will affect their choice. Conservatives in general have no problem with tribalism. In the abstract any life is equal to any other life, but it is only reasonable that I should personally protect the lives of my tribe (be that ethnic group, social class, country) more diligently than I do another tribe. So conservatives tilt towards protecting their tribe. Liberals are not only not comfortable with overt tribalism, they are sensitive to accusations of racism. So when pushed to the boundary, they won't tell the interviewer that they'll kill the black guy - that could be seen as racist. But the white guy doesn't have that protection, so off he goes. Liberals no more want to off the white guy than conservatives do the black. But silly things like "my tribe" or "I don't want to be seen as racist" affect choices on the boundary.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  A rather simpler explanation is simply that the black guy is a member of the liberal tribe. A way to test this: replace "Chip" and "Tyrone" with, e.g., a low income housing or gun rights activist.
  - btilly 16y ago
    Simpler, but I think incorrect. Liberals tend to take positions which include going out of their way to fairly treat people that they very well know don't agree with them. As exhibit A I would take about half the stuff the ACLU does, and as exhibit B most of the efforts to support multiculturalism. That is not to say that there are not liberal tribes - there clearly are - but the mores that they have push them away from straightforward acceptance of tribalism.
ewjordan 16y ago
Here's one I've always liked, along the same lines, that tends to make even the most committed utilitarians pause: You need to build a driveway up to your new house, and there are two possible routes, each one with a single maple tree in the way. One of the trees is very old, but quite healthy, standing at least 50 feet high. The other was just planted a few months ago, so is still quite small. You're not the one that's going to cut the trees down, and the cost to do so will be the same in both cases (let's say that the higher cost to cut down the bigger tree is offset by the fact that the person cutting it down wants the wood for himself) - which tree do you cut down, and why? Now, this doesn't seem like a moral issue. Almost everyone would cut down the smaller tree, for several reasons: it would take less time to grow a new one of the same size, we wouldn't be destroying as much previous "work", etc. Very logical, can't really argue with it. But I lied. When I said "maple tree", what I really meant was "human", and when I said "you need to build a path to your house," what I really meant was "we're all in a flimsy lifeboat, there's a nasty shark circling, and it wants it some tasty human gubbins[1], so we either need to toss overboard the 50 year old award winning medical research doctor with a loving family of six waiting for him at home, or a newborn baby. Or else we all die!" [Edit: As I pointed out in response to some of the comments, I probably should have made the doctor younger, to avoid questions about whether he's already used up most of his potential. I'd encourage you to think about what age he'd need to be to change your decision...] Anyone here actually willing to stand up and say they'd toss the baby? Because from a pure utilitarian point of view, it's the logical thing to do - a newborn baby is a roll of the dice, likely to turn out as a completely average adult, with zero expected value above and beyond any other newborn baby that the same couple has, so they might as well just make another one. OTOH the professor has proven himself to be near the top of the usefulness curve, and the expected value of his remaining years is likely far greater than that of the newborn, even after we factor in the mother's grief over losing her baby. It's a rare person that would actually make the choice to toss the baby - I certainly don't think I could, but I can't really pin down my logic to anything more compelling (in a rational sense) than "But it's a baby, for God's sake, it just feels so wrong!" [1]: A strained extension of the term "gubbins" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gubbins http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gubbins) outside its usual meaning? Perhaps. But screw it, "gubbins" just sound like they would be so damned tasty, I stand firmly behind my use of the word.
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
This gave me a headache, and here's why: it's assuming a dichotomy where none may exist. For instance, I may believe that we should be as consistent as possible in our moral views because society functions better that way. This is a utilitarian argument, but it has deontological implications. Likewise I may feel that my absolute morals requires me always to sacrifice one person for the many. This is a moralistic position which looks like harsh determinism. Or -- as implied here -- we can just make it up as we go along, mixing and matching. This study did nothing to disentangle these terms, choosing instead to define them in such broad and contrasting ways as to create a question where none (or a much deeper one) exists. In short, you should study what you can clearly separate and identify. To do otherwise is to waste your time. And ours.
joe_the_user 16y ago
Honestly, From just thinking about such "experiments", I'd say that such an event is so outside the experience of most people that they simply would not have a mechanism for making such a decision. The somewhat less painful issues around "the right to die" are still very distressing when you are actually confronted with them. For example, consider the unwillingness of soldiers to fire in combat: http://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers-actually-fired-their-weapons-at-the-enemy-during-the-vietnam-war.htm http://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers... Certainly, some people do make such decisions in times of war or times of disaster. I doubt, however, that those folks have dealt with such brutal dilemas would find an evening of exchanging philosophical hypotheticals on the subject terribly enlightening.
onan_barbarian 16y ago
People who choose to not do in Chip Elsworth the 3rd are excessively discounting the future utility of taking this course of action. To wit, being undisturbed by whitey in the future and free to go on to find a white woman wearing a navy blue sweater.

60 points by e1ven 16y ago

hltan 16y ago

Why is this so hard? The law clearly states, if you do nothing you are free. If you do something, you have taken the liability of said action. Unless by doing nothing, you are in violation of your duty. But still I would gladly accept an administrative slap, than a legal one... 100 people or not.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
...clearly, a utilitarian argument.
- hltan 16y ago
  don't you love it when the rules are so simple?
  - jmatthews 16y ago
    Which brings up another issue with the study. If you use the "rational actors" canard of Econ101. Everyone asked is trying to maximize their economic utility. So the opportunity cost of inaction beats action. The study should at least require some form of action of roughly equal cost(liabilities and pyhsical action) to occur in order to zero out this input. I'd also like to rebuff the "action == moral code" statement. There is nothing more common than action that flies in the face of your moral code. Thus the "let he who is without sin" truism. Effecting a utilitarian outcome despite your moral code does not make it moral in the eyes of the person acting, and it can denote either courage or cowardice.

lukev 16y ago

Key quote from the article (IMHO): "The idea is not that people are or are not utilitarian; it’s that they will cite being utilitarian when it behooves them. People are aren’t using these principles and then applying them. They arrive at a judgement and seek a principle."

philwelch 16y ago
The real joke is that philosophers do this, too. If your ethical theory doesn't quite fit with people's moral intuitions, most philosophers will argue that, in itself, is a problem with the theory. This is why I don't put much stock in ethical theory--if intuition is a good enough moral guide that we use it to refute ethical theories, why do we need a theory? More damningly, on what other grounds can we possibly criticize an ethical theory?
- lukev 16y ago
  Well, I think the search for an ethical theory is still valid. That's one of the main exercises of philosophy, taking a lot of particular data points (in this case, moral intuitions) and trying to find some overarching pattern or system. Just because we haven't found a consistent one yet (or even if such a system does not exist) it doesn't mean the search isn't worthwhile.
rdouble 16y ago
The book "Ill Gotten Gains" by Leo Katz explores this subject in depth from the perspective of a lawyer. His thesis is that libertarianism can not be founded on utilitarianism, rather, it must have (and does) have a deontological foundation. It's a must read for anyone who finds this sort of thing interesting. http://www.amazon.com/Ill-Gotten-Gains-Evasion-Blackmail-Kindred/dp/0226425940 http://www.amazon.com/Ill-Gotten-Gains-Evasion-Blackmail-Kin...
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Looks interesting. I just ordered a used copy.
raganwald 16y ago
Of course I cannot speak for people on HN, but this has been my anecdotal experience. People cite all sort sof utilitarian justifications for believing in the absolute power of free markets, or of democracy, or of paying lower taxes, or whatever. I'm certainly representative. I like having the government provide my children's health care and enjoy living in a safe city. What a shocking surprise, I advocate those principles that I perceive (rightly or wrongly) as providing me with the things I like.

jdrock 16y ago

I call BS on the test. Interesting. You state that Casey Jones should divert the train, yet this will cause the death of the person trapped on the railway siding. This seems to be inconsistent with your belief that it is always wrong to cause another person's death. It is somewhat perplexing that you responded this way, since you do not believe that this course of action is necessiated by any general moral requirement to maximise the happiness of the greatest number of people. More of this later. For now, let's see what you make of the scenario below. Choosing to let 1 person die so that 5 can live does not mean I find that action moral. It's simply the better of two options.

Psyonic 16y ago
That's a pretty simplistic view, no? You don't believe causing a death is different than not preventing other deaths? Or perhaps it is different, but there is a certain moral penalty for letting a person die, and this is less than the moral penalty for letting 5 die? What if instead of 5, it was just a pregnant woman (1.5?) Admittedly, that question isn't my favorite, as both options are relatively passive. How do you feel about the situations where a more active role is required? Would you push the man over the railing to save 5?
sp332 16y ago
It's simply the better of two options. You feel this way, but many people will avoid switching the train. The point of the experiments is to see if (statistically) more or fewer people are willing to switch the train based on the race of the people involved.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
That is a moral code. The whole point of the question is whether your code is absolute: can you kill someone if the alternative is worse, or can you absolutely not kill someone regardless of the alternative?
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  Sometimes the thing that has to die, is my moral code. Of course we must save the most people; of course it is immoral, and my immortal sould will suffer, but I am only one person and its worth it.

Psyonic 16y ago

I read an interesting paper on this phenomenon years ago (that we use morality to justify, not reason). A summary (not written by me): According to Haidt's (2001) social intuitionist model (SIM), an individual's moral judgment normally arises from automatic 'moral intuitions'. Private moral reasoning—when it occurs—is biased and post hoc, serving to justify the moral judgment determined by the individual's intuitions. http://www.mc.edu/campus/academics/BIO/emotional%20dog%20rational%20tail.pdf http://www.mc.edu/campus/academics/BIO/emotional%20dog%20rat...

autarch 16y ago

Another flaw in this sort of study is that there's an enormous disconnect between what we say we would do, and what we would actually do. I might say "yes, I would push Chip/Tyrone over the rail", because I really do believe that's the best thing to do. But if I were actually faced with that dilemma and had to murder someone, could I do it?

zacharycohn 16y ago
Maybe! It depends on the circumstances... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
notahacker 16y ago
It doesn't account for the likelihood that my actions fail to save anyone and simply increase the death toll either, which would be a paralysing fear for many people in real life. This particular scenario seems an odd one because I simply can't conceive a situation in which I could ever be confident a falling fat man would stop a moving train. My instinct would surely be to trust everything I'd previously learned about the laws of physics.
marcinw 16y ago
Why not just ask Chip or Tyrone whether they feel their lives are worth losing to save a hundred others?
- notahacker 16y ago
  If someone asked me that I'd push them over the edge!
smallblacksun 16y ago
There's also the fact that you would be making a complete guess that the man was large enough to stop the trolley in real life, and if he wasn't you would simply be adding another victim. Besides, a man large enough to stop a trolley would be really hard to push.

iuyhgtfvgbhjn 16y ago

That explains the behavior of all the drivers as I cycle to work. They are all moral philosophers and believe that by killing me they provide donor organs to save 6 others. Maybe I need a cycling top that says "I don't carry a donor card"

rdouble 16y ago
This version of the "trolley" thought experiment is explored in the book I mentioned in a previous post. It turns out people will not choose to steer a trolley of people needing organ replacements into a healthy potential organ donor. Thus, most people really aren't utilitarians, even if they claim to be. Unfortunately, one of the chemical processes in the brain reverses this attitude when someone prone to road rage spies a cyclist. A typical response is that these sorts of mental games are silly, but how people answer these questions actually forms the basis of legal systems throughout the world.
- iuyhgtfvgbhjn 16y ago
  We used to use the "would you kill a jogger for his organs" question on smug medical student applicants - those who wanted to be doctors "to help people". Another good question is ask them why they don't become civil engineers - good drains save a lot more people than doctors ever did.
Tyr42 16y ago
I remember watching a documentary where they found that drivers are much more likely to cut off cyclists wearing helmets than those without helmets. They also measured things like average distance between car and bike when passing. If people see you not wearing a helmet they assume that you are unsafe and will stay further away from you.
- btilly 16y ago
  A friend of mine got access to the traffic accident statistics for Connecticut for several years. He found that it was safer to use smack than to ride a bike. If I remember correctly he also found that in the event of a reported accident, a bicyclist had a 15% chance of a "life-altering event". (For instance you might live, but never walk normally again.) After that he gave up biking and switched to tennis.

reader5000 16y ago

Xenophobia is a well-known behavioral trait, this study seems to indicate xenophilia exists as well (i.e., Americans being more accepting of American causalities than Iraqi).

amh 16y ago
It bugs me when stuff like that is described as "xenophobia". It's possible to dislike something (or have a preference for the alternative) without fearing it. Even when the basis for the dislike is irrational -- if you prefer chocolate ice cream does that imply that you fear strawberry?
- MartinCron 16y ago
  The -phobia suffix doesn't indicate fear exclusively, it's also used to describe profound distaste and dislike. Just like with homophobia, One doesn't have to be specifically afraid of gay people to be homophobic, though that is often the case.

sprout 16y ago

I find the bit about Iraqis vs. Americans a bit superficial. As a liberal, I would consider collateral damage less of a problem when Americans die because all Americans are responsible for the present situation in Iraq, while most Iraqis are innocent bystanders. I view this as utilitarian: if people who start wars have a greater chance of death than people who don't start wars, this should in theory decrease the incidence of war. Similarly, when we talk about Tyrone vs. Chip, this is a question of a poor man vs. a rich man. But more to the point, "Chip Ellsworth III" evokes a sterotype of the rich Connecticut blueblood, a parasite aristocrat. A much more interesting study would actually look at people in different clothes, with different skin tones. This just measures people's reaction to someone whose father was overly proud of his lineage and is likely a rich socialite. Obviously this says something about my politics, but again it doesn't necessarily say anything vis-a-vis deontology vs. utilitarianism. Again, my impression of the name "Chip" is that he's a worthless individual who contributes nothing to society. However, even if we assume that both are model citizens, it stands to reason that the death of the hypothetical lower-class black man is going to put his family through significant hardship, while Chip's family has enough money that mostly people will be getting a sudden unexpected influx of cash. So the question really becomes: kill one man, or kill one man and ruin his family's chance at a decent life.

defen 16y ago
If you're going to play the odds and assume the blueblood is a "parasite", shouldn't you also assume that the lower-class black man is not present to support his family anyway?
- sprout 16y ago
  Please finish reading my comment.
  - defen 16y ago
    I didn't mean in your response to the hypothetical question ('assume each is a model citizen') - I meant in real life: "my impression of the name "Chip" is that he's a worthless individual who contributes nothing to society."

dusklight 16y ago

I think it's important to point out that the names chosen are not only denotations of race, they are denotations of class. Maybe instead of the liberals feeling better about killing the white guy to save the black guys, they feel better about killing the rich guy to save the poor guys. There is a tendency to conflate class issues with race issues in America, and I think that really muddles the debate somewhat.

trjordan 16y ago
There is a tendency to conflate the two because they are strongly correlated. It's not a mistake to assume that Tyrone is poor and black and Chip is rich and white -- it's a best guess based on observations about reality in the US. Does it make it absolutely moral to make that assumption? Of course not, people should be treated without regard to previous biases, etc. But it doesn't mean the statistical inference is invalid.
- ryanpetrich 16y ago
  Chip Ellsworth III sounds distinctly aristocratic. Another "white-sounding" name could be chosen that doesn't have that quality.

btilly 16y ago

Here is what I think is going on. First, you're putting people in a position where they are on the boundaries of what they consider acceptable. Anything that affects those boundaries, will affect their choice. Conservatives in general have no problem with tribalism. In the abstract any life is equal to any other life, but it is only reasonable that I should personally protect the lives of my tribe (be that ethnic group, social class, country) more diligently than I do another tribe. So conservatives tilt towards protecting their tribe. Liberals are not only not comfortable with overt tribalism, they are sensitive to accusations of racism. So when pushed to the boundary, they won't tell the interviewer that they'll kill the black guy - that could be seen as racist. But the white guy doesn't have that protection, so off he goes. Liberals no more want to off the white guy than conservatives do the black. But silly things like "my tribe" or "I don't want to be seen as racist" affect choices on the boundary.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
A rather simpler explanation is simply that the black guy is a member of the liberal tribe. A way to test this: replace "Chip" and "Tyrone" with, e.g., a low income housing or gun rights activist.
- btilly 16y ago
  Simpler, but I think incorrect. Liberals tend to take positions which include going out of their way to fairly treat people that they very well know don't agree with them. As exhibit A I would take about half the stuff the ACLU does, and as exhibit B most of the efforts to support multiculturalism. That is not to say that there are not liberal tribes - there clearly are - but the mores that they have push them away from straightforward acceptance of tribalism.

ewjordan 16y ago

Here's one I've always liked, along the same lines, that tends to make even the most committed utilitarians pause: You need to build a driveway up to your new house, and there are two possible routes, each one with a single maple tree in the way. One of the trees is very old, but quite healthy, standing at least 50 feet high. The other was just planted a few months ago, so is still quite small. You're not the one that's going to cut the trees down, and the cost to do so will be the same in both cases (let's say that the higher cost to cut down the bigger tree is offset by the fact that the person cutting it down wants the wood for himself) - which tree do you cut down, and why? Now, this doesn't seem like a moral issue. Almost everyone would cut down the smaller tree, for several reasons: it would take less time to grow a new one of the same size, we wouldn't be destroying as much previous "work", etc. Very logical, can't really argue with it. But I lied. When I said "maple tree", what I really meant was "human", and when I said "you need to build a path to your house," what I really meant was "we're all in a flimsy lifeboat, there's a nasty shark circling, and it wants it some tasty human gubbins[1], so we either need to toss overboard the 50 year old award winning medical research doctor with a loving family of six waiting for him at home, or a newborn baby. Or else we all die!" [Edit: As I pointed out in response to some of the comments, I probably should have made the doctor younger, to avoid questions about whether he's already used up most of his potential. I'd encourage you to think about what age he'd need to be to change your decision...] Anyone here actually willing to stand up and say they'd toss the baby? Because from a pure utilitarian point of view, it's the logical thing to do - a newborn baby is a roll of the dice, likely to turn out as a completely average adult, with zero expected value above and beyond any other newborn baby that the same couple has, so they might as well just make another one. OTOH the professor has proven himself to be near the top of the usefulness curve, and the expected value of his remaining years is likely far greater than that of the newborn, even after we factor in the mother's grief over losing her baby. It's a rare person that would actually make the choice to toss the baby - I certainly don't think I could, but I can't really pin down my logic to anything more compelling (in a rational sense) than "But it's a baby, for God's sake, it just feels so wrong!" [1]: A strained extension of the term "gubbins" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gubbins http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gubbins) outside its usual meaning? Perhaps. But screw it, "gubbins" just sound like they would be so damned tasty, I stand firmly behind my use of the word.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

This gave me a headache, and here's why: it's assuming a dichotomy where none may exist. For instance, I may believe that we should be as consistent as possible in our moral views because society functions better that way. This is a utilitarian argument, but it has deontological implications. Likewise I may feel that my absolute morals requires me always to sacrifice one person for the many. This is a moralistic position which looks like harsh determinism. Or -- as implied here -- we can just make it up as we go along, mixing and matching. This study did nothing to disentangle these terms, choosing instead to define them in such broad and contrasting ways as to create a question where none (or a much deeper one) exists. In short, you should study what you can clearly separate and identify. To do otherwise is to waste your time. And ours.

joe_the_user 16y ago

Honestly, From just thinking about such "experiments", I'd say that such an event is so outside the experience of most people that they simply would not have a mechanism for making such a decision. The somewhat less painful issues around "the right to die" are still very distressing when you are actually confronted with them. For example, consider the unwillingness of soldiers to fire in combat: http://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers-actually-fired-their-weapons-at-the-enemy-during-the-vietnam-war.htm http://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers... Certainly, some people do make such decisions in times of war or times of disaster. I doubt, however, that those folks have dealt with such brutal dilemas would find an evening of exchanging philosophical hypotheticals on the subject terribly enlightening.

onan_barbarian 16y ago

People who choose to not do in Chip Elsworth the 3rd are excessively discounting the future utility of taking this course of action. To wit, being undisturbed by whitey in the future and free to go on to find a white woman wearing a navy blue sweater.