A hundred who would otherwise die. The one (healthy person) who qualifies in the vicinity that time allows, refuses to donate a pint that would save them all. Should the government be allowed to force him? Mr Wookie implied awhile ago that he would vote no.

Given the number 100:

1. What percentage of Republicans would say yes? (My guess 40)

2. What percentage of Democrats would say yes? (My guess 60)

3 What are the chances chezlaw would say yes? (its 17%)

No, Democrat.

I want whatever drugs you're on with these thread starts

OP. all your threads are basically my "is it cool to steal from bad people?" thread, by any other name. Only reason they are not locked is that you are an admin, and marginally articulate.

Trolley thread take 3!

I'm sorry, I just can't figure out whether I should answer the question that isn't enumerated or not.

Same for forcing him to pee in in a cup (to save 100 lives)? Same for forcing him to get a very safe vaccine?

Force him, but also pay him whatever a pharmaceutical company would charge for 16oz of a rare, life-saving biologic drug.

Unless they’re willing to also force pharma companies to give similar treatments away for free.

No. (Republican)

Its a bit different since it doesn't always involve death. But if it was a trolley problem it would ask if the government should throw a switch to save 100 lives if it meant that one person would undergo a forcible blood donation.

Presumably anyone or any government who would throw the switch to kill one rather the original 100 would even be more willing to throw the switch under this scenario. But I bet that lots of people (who didn't read this post) who would vote "no" to this OP WOULD kill the one to save the 100.

It is this inconsistent feature of most human beings that causes wars.

Actual market rate $9. Pharma company price 60k

I'd like to take the under

No and it's not close

That depends, saying it is okay for someone else to push the button is not the same as saying it is okay for you to push the button. Saying you would push the button is also not the same as saying there should be a general rule about pushing the button or that you want government to be the decider.

Obviously the thought experiments are related, but they are not identical.

As for me, I'd say that if your nation's population is 101, it becomes a clear yes. As the hypothetical population number increases, I lean more no. When it isn't necessary for the survival of your society, it becomes a clear no. I'm ignoring the potential for foreign aid, which could change the initial yes.

The problem is that the answer is going to change depending on the hypothetical we construct as to why a government would do this.

It's tempting to say no but then if it's a soldier in a field hospital then yes. What if those 100 are our best scientists and letting them die would somehow set us back years on dealing with the current pandemic?

One of the things we know through history is that whatever is said during peace time people will give up some liberties during a crisis. If you'd made a thread three years ago asking "If the government told you all non-essential businesses must close and people must remain indoors as much as possible, would people do it?" I think every British citizen would've said "No, that's fascism" but needs must.

As a general principle there's some value in a rule utilitarianist approach here that says the best course is to not have the government violate bodily autonomy. I'd expect a majority "No" to your question from everywhere on the political spectrum.

Sometimes it's interesting to tinker around and see where we tip the scale but in this instance I don't think it's going to go anywhere the trolley thread didn't.

The last two post touch on a point I made to DS many years ago about phase shifts in these problems.

There's a huge difference between governments acting wihtin the system compared to the government acting when the system is under existential threat. In the former I dont think it would be ok to save a 1000 lives but in the later (say we're at war with the nazis) it might be ok to force eveyone to give blood as a matter of course even if each armful only saved a fraction of a life.

The covid crises (where I believe we should have gone onto war footing of sorts) would be another phase.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that. As I said, the fun can be tinkering around to where we draw the line, but at the extremes it's always easy enough. You only ever have to make the consequences extreme enough and anything becomes justified.

What % of the 100 are fans of the British Sit Com "Mrs Brown's Boys"?

what % spotted my classic comedy reference

Based on a survey of me, 0%.

1. The notion that the government can reasonably decide that one business is "essential" while another business is "non-essential" is absurd. Here in ridiculous California, liquor stores and pot-dispensaries were deemed "essential", while restaurants were deemed "non-essential." That's just plain stupid.

2. The lockdowns were completely unnecessary. A great book on the subject is The Price of Panic: How the Tyranny of Experts Turned a Pandemic into a Catastrophe by William M. Briggs, PhD et. al.

Because of the bolded, I think that this question is actually very different than the trolley problem.

Also, there would be legitimate slippery slope concerns w/r/t to giving the government this power that don't arise with the trolley problem.

@lagtight I'll leave all that to the relevant threads. My point itt is just that things that people would mass protest over in normal times are readily accepted under different circumstances.

I agree with your main point 100%.

Fair. I only hinted at Covid because I thought that's where Sklansky was going with his vaccine comment. A less controversial example would be Britain during the Blitz when there was a curfew and restrictions on lighting etc. I think almost anyone would go along with that, but if you ask them without context "Would you agree if the government told you had to be off the streets before dark and couldn't turn your lights on in the evening?" then you'll get a resounding no.

I haven't ever read this book, but after googling this guy's name and looking at his website, I never will.

Well said!