I obviously disagree with you. I maintain that it is simply a matter of scale.



Game theory teaches us that in determining dominant strategy,one must first know what the goal is for ourselves,as well as for our opponant.

You and I are not vying for a prize,we are supposedly on the same side searching for truth,butwe will never agree upon when it is found,(i,e, what is the best course of action)because we have terribly different criteria for determining which outcome is best.

For you,outward suffering of even one person is the worst case scenario.
For me,death is the worst case scenario.

As we've already established: You would take a larger chance in dieing in order to eliminate your chance of suffering. You seem to think that this should make sense to everyone.

I would take survival. I would risk the possibility of suffering for a twice greater chance at survival.I would find death to be the worst case scenario. I would take the risk of a painful death in order to double my chances of survival.



Lol, we have strayed greatly from the op. The op assumes that one already knows that 2>1. It asks if we would conciously strive to be more like the trained emt or not.

I was referring to an earlier post of mine.The "equations" therein assumed the possibility of all combinations (1 asleep/two awake..two asleep one awake) assuming that the fact that they were awake or asleep had little baring on their current "viability" from a standpont of triage.

But,whatever. I would still "buy" the doubling of my chances of survival even with the 33% chance of suffering. Too many people count on me for me to do otherwise.

And I suspect that you and I are boring everyone.

[Wowsers;18726134]That doesnt make me a guy who wants to "save half as many people in order to not endure great emotional discomfort". Do cut down on those strawmans.[/QUOTE]

Who does it make you then?
The guy who wants to let two people die because a third won't shut up?

Ok ,so it's not for you-it's for him. Lucky guy.

It's not that I don't "hear" you,Wowsers. It's just that I'm glad you're not an EMT.

I entirely agree with your assesment here.

But, I wonder how we have merged game theory with empathy/sympathy?

I mean, the obvious is to not
be ruled at the poker table by, for instance, some blind man playing in seat 8 nor a rack
on some hot chick.

...or the screaming half-dead dude in seat four.

Just kidding,everyone. Please don't debate the half dead guy in seat 4 with me.

How does one ignore the rack? How,great sifu...?

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates can still be true to themselves and extend themselves to humanitarian agendas.
I don't see Steve Jobs on this list of phlanthropists.
He appears to use social issues to support his own selfish business goals.
(Although I think he has great products. I just don't see him extending himself to other humans, as can be witnessed by his business practices.
I would not want him on my 'Hunter and Gatherer' team in Neanderthal times!)

Not crying does not denote more empathy.
Crying does not denote more empathy.

I don't see the point in connecting crying
and the amount one gives to a charity.

In my opinion empathy actually trumps sympathy because true empathy is putting yourself in the others position and really imagining how that would feel. Sympathy is more like understanding how someone feels and feeling sorry for them.

If in the original scenario the paramedic saved the one person and let the two die, I would argue that is was because of empathy, not sympathy. Normal humans would feel sympathy for all three people but the pleads of the conscious one could sway that and create empathy in the paramedic.

But a paramedic is trained to ignore those reactions and would probably save the two unconscious ones, so neither empathy or sympathy is the winner. A lay person without that training would probably know the right thing to do would be to save two lives over one but could be easily swayed by the pleads of the conscious person (empathy wins). If the lay person saves the two then I don't think that is sympathy winning. I don't really think that emotions are at the core of this kind of decision, its more like a common sense decision and the reason they may feel guilt is because they felt genuine empathy for the one conscious person but ignored it.

So maybe the title of the chapter should be "Common Sense > Empathy > Sympathy."

It's me again. I know I'm slow and annoying, but let's please get back to what's important: helping me find out what we're discussing here.



Would this clarify the point of the two-donator example:

they (retired millionaires) are watching news about a disaster.

A says: you know, I've just been there to help as a volunteer. And I'm gonna donate 1000$. It's a real tragedy. The poor people. You should go there too so you can see for yourself.

B says: nah, I'm good. But I'm also gonna donate 1000$ plus twice the worth in dollar of your volunteer work and commitment (Just assume such equation is possible!).


A obviously is (more likely to be) empathetic to the people's plight, but both are sympathetic (ie. they donate).

In terms of value for the charity the donator's motivation doesn't really matter. In this case it wouldn't be logical to favor one donator over the other if you compare them by anything else than the amount they donated.

The person who donated more (value) should receive more plaudits.

Saying that A deserves more plaudits is wrong.

Arguing otherwise is not reasonable.


Am I understanding this correctly? Anyone agreeing? Are those the claims OP/his examples are making?

Help me out here, guys!

I'm still trying to figure out what the actual problem/issue/point/statement is, before I can even begin thinking of forming an opinion on the matter.

(do we need to agree on a common definition of empathy and sympathy first, before we argue what trumps what?)


FWIW, this is the last paragraph of the chapter:




Or just go on and keep the discussion going...

[offtopic]I admit: having to choose between what my moderately educated brain and my untrustworthy gut are telling me is my dilemma: I'm not sure if you guys are actually talking about what OP is suggesting on a deeper level and I simply can't follow or are for the most part missing the point by a mile and just arguing for arguing's sake.
[/offtopic]

who is to say what is measuring the most "effective action"
or the best consequences? And effective for whom?

In some cases it is measureable.
Others , it's not.

If we agree (or assume) that the examples given by OP are measureable cases (number of lives saved, amount of money donated), is it not clear what the most effective action is?

Wouldn't people (observers), who - after seeing that the less empathetic person is measurably the one deserving more plaudits - still claim that the more empathic person is more deserving (for whatever reasons), be wrong then?



And with regards to the measurabilty of problems, you may be surprised how measurable most cases are. That's another constant topic in the book, in my opinion.

Regardless of this thread being off track ATM, im going to answer the original question. In a vacuum (which is how this question was posed) it has already been determined that 2>1. Something that *almost* got touched on, but not quite, were the other people who are going to be affected. Lets say their death will dramatically affect the life of 3 other people (which I feel is a very fair scenario, and except for rare occasions I feel it'd be higher than that). For the sake of not adding more amends to an overly simplified question I'm going to completely skip the physical pain:emotional pain:life argument other than saying the emotional pain of the loved ones will outlast the physical pain the conscious dude is going through. Furthermore, having gone through losing a loved one I would much rather take the hour or so of excruciating physical pain than the 1yr+ of emotional hell they will inevitably experience - but that's part of the argument I wanted to avoid. Basically my simplified point here is that we're not only affecting 3 people. There are 12 people who are going to be directly affected by the decisions getting made (and granted the math deduces it back to 2:1, however I think we can all agree lives are more than just numbers).

+1 to all three paragraphs.

And Greenkeeper,there is nothing "slow" or "boring" about your posts. You cut through the extraneous,there is nothing boring about that.

I'm one of the posters guilty of letting himself get drawn into side arguments. Apologies to everyone for that.

"without training" is the key here.

Either way our hero has saved a life and there is nothing more noble than this. Because our hero has no training and cannot be expected to know that he could save two lives instead of one, the screams (and more importantly our hero's reaction of lack of reaction to them) become a Red Herring. The only way I can see that the screams are relevant to the argument is this:

Without training, he has no way to know that he could save two therefore, his ignoring of the screams and tending to the unconscious victims would be absurd (even though we know that in the end he would have gotten lucky in his decision).

.

Nice job taking a post out of context PV.

There was no avoidance of answering the question. The fact is, the question was answered. One with no training saves the one. One with training ignores the screams and saves the two. The real world answer to this question is that neither one of them is wrong. Both of them saved a life.

But that is not the question. The question is whether an UNtrained person who saves two should be thought of in any way negatively. Put differently, which choice would you hope your son would make if he wasn't trained?

You've got a huge multiway pot on the river while you're holding the one and only nuts on the button. The table is full of calling stations that would call a shove here with K-high, and they all check to you. Player A would check behind and player B would bet. According to your logic, A and B are equal in their $EV coz each one of them would've won money.

My answer is I would not look on either choice negatively (unless I was personally involved). Selfishly, I would hope my son chose to save ANY, and beyond that, that he was comfortable with his choice.

Even if you rate both choices as equally admirable it does not mean you consider them equal, whether you realize it or not. Anybody who does not rate the saving of the two higher is giving extra points for being non spockish. Some would say that those extra points swings the decision to the other side. You are saying that those points swings it just enough to be a push.

Your question was about thinking about someone Negatively for their actions. I don't think of someone negatively for saving a life, period (unless I am emotionally involved). Either action is positive, and I would not ascribe negativity to either choice.

Even though I recognize that saving two lives in that situation is the harder but more beneficial choice.

What if the situation was this? One concious person trapped in an auto accident (ie who would not survive without recue) who was a perfect donor for two patients that would die without immediate kidney transplant from the trapped person (assuming 100% success ratio, etc.). How do you distinguish this morally. Is it ok to let the trapped person die only to harvest his kidneys so that two others can live? Is there a moral distinction? If so, what? Pretty sure no one will consider it morally appropriate to let the trapped person die to harvest his organs, notwithstanding the fact that it may save two lives of equal vaue.

I'm stealing this. See SMP.

In the case that further oil needs to be thrown in the fire,

I would argue that if we knew the screaming guy was going to die it would be morally correct to kill him outright to save him from the pain.

Nobody said he was in pain. He was pleading for his life. What gives you the right to affirmatively end his life even more prematurely against his will? Under your moral system 3rd parties decide who lives and who dies and when based on their perception of the level of comfort of someone-- irrespective of the persons wishes? Pretty sure that in the present system (as reflected by our laws) you would convicted of murder.

Try again.

No, you. Injured does not = in pain.

Jesus christ. I tell you that you've gotten something wrong and you still won't even read the post you were responding to.

Sorry. I see. However, it changes nothing UNLESS he is asking you to put him out of his misery. From what I can see, the concious man is not asking to be put to death to avoid pain. He is asking to be saved. I'm not sure under what moral system you have the right to affirmatively kill him against his will to spare him pain.