Perhaps I am one of the "sentimentally irrational," but I would pick the 400 certain lives saved if it were a one-time choice, and the 500 @ 90% if it were an iterated choice I had to make over, and over again. In the long run, probabilities would take hold, and many more people would be saved. But for a single instance of an event never to be repeated? I'd save the 400 for certain.
Your 80% and 90% figures don't really add up either. You don't describe how many people in total will die, regardless of you decision. If the max death number poss...
(same anon from above who asked about the context of the 400/500 problem being an issue)
In response to GreedyAlgorithm who said:
Certainly finding out all of the facts that you can is good. But rationality has to work no matter how many facts you have. If the only thing you know is that you have two options:
- Save 400 lives, with certainty
- Save 500 lives, 90% probability; save no lives, 10% probability.
then you should take option 2. Yes, more information might change your choice.
Obviously. And not interesting. The point is that given this information, rat
... (read more)