good or evil: the same for everyone?

[Furby]

Okay, now I see the small difference.

Technically yes, Bob is guilty of a) letting the terrorist into the city and b) if he did bomb the city, bob is guilty of not preventing it. Assuming Bob did nothing to stop the terrorist after he entered the city, is failure to stop killing just as bad killing yourself?

This is a very loaded question, so I will be more specific on certain circumstances: Apparently, it seems Bob is responsible for making sure that whoever enters the city is checked. It seems Bob knew this terrorist was entering and let him in, knowingly knowing what terrorists do. Bob, therefore put into danger many civilian lives. According to our example, those people died.

Another example: Michael Jackson during one of his media coverages, held his son over a balcony for about a split second. If that child had been accidentally dropped, Jackson would not be a murderer...but that fact he even put his son in that kind of danger...doesn't that have the same magnitude?

[OldTrees]

Bob's situation (let's place him as a security guard)
Regardless of whether the bomb went off or not Bob has done 2 things
1) Allowed the bomb to go off
2) Betrayed the responsibility placed on his post

Now I would argue the magnitude of allowing a bomb to go off depends on the circumstances¹ but is never as large as setting and triggering the same bomb. However betraying the responsibility of his post is another thing Bob is guilty of. He was entrusted with trying to stop these kinds of events. So depending on how you weigh the betrayal, Bob might have less, equal or more guilt in total than the terrorist. However even in the case where the magnitude is equal it is resulting from different "moral crimes".

Michael Jackson's act is very simple. He put the child in risk of dropping rather than dropping him intentionally. So it doesn't have the same magnitude as someone that intentionally drops his son off a balcony. However it was still wrong because it risked harm to the child.


¹Based on the cost to stop, the probability it will go off and the severity of the possible outcomes.

[Furby]

1) When you say 'cost to stop' what are you referring to specifically? Like how much money is worth spending on saving someone?

2) I will agree with that: Bob did not himself set the bomb off, but did betray his position.

So, to see how much farther apart we are let me ask this:

Assuming Bob willingly let the terrorist in, failed to report the terrorist presence, and had a lot of proof that the terrorist was going to kill a lot of people, and the terrorist did in fact kill a lot of people:

I cannot say that magnitude of 'immorality' for Bob was less than the terrorist, but at the least was equal, but more likely more of a magnitude. Your thoughts on my position? Your position on the magnitude?

[OldTrees]

1)
Cost and severity refer to the same things: Property, Health and even Lives. It might not be worth disarming a bomb if it costs more lives than the bomb would kill.

2)
Based on how I personally weigh those types of actions, Bob would have done something worse but different than the terrorist.

[Furby]

Okay, so then we agree with point 2...but point 1:

let's dive into this a little more.

Terrorist ties 500 people up with a bomb. A bomb expert knows it is risky to try to disarm it, but if he fails, he too will also die.

a) He chooses to disarm it and succeeds=saved 500 people.

b) He chooses to disarm it and fails, therefore 501 people die.

c) Chooses to not do it=500 people die.

I think B is fine since it is okay for people trying to save others, given the circumstances allow. Being a bomb expert, the circumstances allowed it.

For C though, do certain people have moral obligations to other people? Example: doctors have a moral obligation to pull over and help out a dying person. People around have a moral obligation in a sense call it in at least.

[northcity4]

The bomb expert does have a moral obligation to the people tied up if his job deems so. Failing to do his job is comparable to Bob failing to do his. By failing I mean they both decided to not do their job.

[OldTrees]

@Furby
You forgot to calculate the cost of trying to disarm the bomb.
Let us assume that the person trying to disarm the bomb had a 50% chance to succeed. (Lower than expected for a bomb expert but it makes the math easy).
The expected cost of trying to disarm the bomb is the deaths of 250.5 people and saving 250 people. This would be compared to if the attempt was not made (500 dead).
250.5 < 500 thus it seems reasonable to try to disarm.

[Furby]

There was a thread that talked about this similar issue.

Where do we draw the line then...more importantly, let's assume you are the manager of the bomb expert. Do you tell your bomb expert to go in on 10%? 30%? 50%? 90%? only 100%?

I mean, it makes sense that if there is a 1% chance to go looking for other options, but if it is 99%, then of course send him in.

In your example, I think there is an issue. saving 250 makes no sense. You still either save 500 or none. If you wanted to convert your chances into saving people...that is not a proper unit change

[OldTrees]

@Furby
It is called an expected value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value).
Probability of A * Result of A + Probability of Not A * Result of Not A = Expected value of (A or Not A)

[Savage]

Wait...Trees: although your probability math may work, I don't think it would be of much use here. In probabilities regarding results, you need multiple outcomes.

Example: If Bob's, as you guys are talking about, situation was all over the world, then you could say from the mathematical point of view that on average 250 people were saved.

In Bob's case, you got one shot.

[Furby]

Trees, regardless of your probability, the average is 50% either way. So, I will ask again: is 50% good enough? If we take Savage's example: such as 100 hostage situations all over the country, would using a bomb expert, giving 250 saved on average per case, be good enough? If there were no other alternatives I would agree, but would it be worth the time to look for other alternatives as well?

Also: where do you draw the line? In a case like this, I can't say this would be a good example to show what I am asking about.

Different example: Person A wants to save person B. If person B is saved, person C lives, but if person B dies, person C has a 10% chance of living. If person A doesn't try at all, person B will have a 50/50 chance of living.

So, in this case for example: if person A cannot find a way better than 50% chance to save person B, it would be in person A's interest to not do anything at all.

Now, if we take out the knowledge of person B's 50/50 chance--->Where would Person A draw the line? I am sure if a possibility of 40% came up, it will be considered, but something like 20% doesn't seem likely.

Does this make sense?

[OldTrees]

@Savage
I did not say average value. I said expected value. Similar equation but different assumptions. Expected value assumes 1 event not many. Also it not calculate a real value, merely an expected value.

@Furby
I did not answer what percentage because
1) It is too far off topic
2) It is a complicated topic
3) It does not have a consensus
and 4) I do not have a finalized opinion on it