I couldn't get the wording on these questions quite right. Assume that, for the riskier of the options, the risk to you is equal for both questions. ( poll )
i think "complete stranger" may cause people to think "innocent bystander", especially in the second question. but if that complete stranger is trying to kill me, damn straight i'm gonna defend myself.
i'm not sure if your comment on equality of risk clarified anything for me. i'm picturing a drowing scenario. if a complete stranger falls into a pool and has a 100% chance of dying because s/he can't swim, if i share that same 100% risk, then no i'm not going to attempt a rescue. if he has a 50% chance of drowning and so do i, than maybe.
assume that in both scenarios, if you choose "you" their chances are 0% and yours are 100% but if you choose "them" their chances are 100% and yours are, say, 50/50. So it's a non-zero-sum game.
In the first scenario the person is explicitly or implicitly petitioning you for succor, and in the second scenario they are explicitly or implicitly threatening you. Other than that you have no knowledge of their circumstances or background.
i think i'd leave my answers as is. in the first scenario if i don't answer them, then if i understand you correctly i am condeming them to death, and my risk is not as great as theirs.
this of course is what i lean toward in this intellectual exercise. of course the conditions are important. i probably would jump into a pool to pull a stranger out, but may not go into a line of fire during a driveby shooting to pull a stranger back behind shelter.
in the second scenario, if they are threatening me, and it has the potential to be a lethal threat to me, then i'd have to respond in kind even if that means it'd kill them.
The weird thing is, for the first one I just don't know. My personal guess is that self-preservation would win out, but it could be that my reflexes would take over and I'd shove the kid out from in front of the bus before I realized I was doing it - or I'd freeze and do nothing without consciously choosing. I dunno.
It occred to me that part of the distinction, (maybe just for me) is the probable subsequent actions of the stranger. It's not so much that "threat = life forfeiture". In the help scenario, you can reasonably expect that the stranger is on your side, and even if death is pretty damn near likely for you, s/he would make and effort to help you survive as well. So the risk seems more worthwhile. Like in the pool scenario, if I, a poor swimmer jumped in to save someone else, I can reasonably expect that they will not leave me for dead. Even if he can't drag me to safety himself, I can feel certain that he would call for more help
( ... )
Comments 34
i'm not sure if your comment on equality of risk clarified anything for me. i'm picturing a drowing scenario. if a complete stranger falls into a pool and has a 100% chance of dying because s/he can't swim, if i share that same 100% risk, then no i'm not going to attempt a rescue. if he has a 50% chance of drowning and so do i, than maybe.
Reply
Reply
In the first scenario the person is explicitly or implicitly petitioning you for succor, and in the second scenario they are explicitly or implicitly threatening you. Other than that you have no knowledge of their circumstances or background.
Reply
this of course is what i lean toward in this intellectual exercise. of course the conditions are important. i probably would jump into a pool to pull a stranger out, but may not go into a line of fire during a driveby shooting to pull a stranger back behind shelter.
in the second scenario, if they are threatening me, and it has the potential to be a lethal threat to me, then i'd have to respond in kind even if that means it'd kill them.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment