How Far Would You Go To FIRE?

[Bucksandreds]

I was at work having a hypothetical conversation about money and I asked for $x million would you press a button that kills one random person on another continent. Pretty much everyone I asked said that they would press the button.  I don't think that I could.  Of those not close or at FIRE, would you press the button to hit your $ number? Again, pretty much everyone I asked said that they would so be honest.

[Gone Fishing]

You work with some sick individuals.  You need a new job!

[soccerluvof4]

Either someone in my family or myself would need to personally be hurt for me to even consider taking another life. Money is not part of it.  SO DONT FUCK WITH ME!! lol

[NESailor]

Nope.  I'd expect people on this forum to be largely "noes" given that most on here have a pretty clear idea how to get to FI and approximately when that will be (soon, compared to average).

If it only takes me another 10 to 15 years, it's certainly not worth killing for.  For the record, even if it were to take another 50 I would not change my answer.

Edit: to fix poor syntax

[nereo]

Reminds me of the Milgram experiments where test subjects were all-too-willing to inflict what they believed to be painful shocks to random strangers because they were ordered and/or compensated to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment


OP:  no, i wouldn't choose the death of a random stranger for $1MM. I'll get my money without the intentional death of others, or not at all.

[andy85]

Reminds me of the Milgram experiments where test subjects were all-too-willing to inflict what they believed to be painful shocks to random strangers because they were ordered and/or compensated to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment


OP:  no, i wouldn't choose the death of a random stranger for $1MM. I'll get my money without the intentional death of others, or not at all.

i was trying to remember what that was called....reminded me of that as well

And to OP, no

[bobechs]

There's a place out in Nevada where they do just that, but for a lot less money.

In salary & benefits for the button-pushers that is.  The overall budget may be on the order of a million per kill or so.  I dunno. 

[Bucksandreds]

Thank you.  I'm glad you feel this way.  I was thinking that all day everyday all I would do is feel guilt about what I did.  Here's a twist.  Gun to your head and the person with the gun says press the button and kill the innocent person or I shoot you.

[cerat0n1a]

Do you work in an investment bank, Bucksandreds? :-)

[TravelJunkyQC]

Thank you.  I'm glad you feel this way.  I was thinking that all day everyday all I would do is feel guilt about what I did.  Here's a twist.  Gun to your head and the person with the gun says press the button and kill the innocent person or I shoot you.

In this example, yes, I would press the button. If the gun was to a loved one's head, again, I would press the button. No gun to anyone's head, no button pressing.

[Cassie]

I can't believe the people you work with would do this. Pretty sick to even consider it.

[Neustache]

Gah!  Even if it's pointed at myself, not sure I could do it.  For a family member....yes. 

That's really messed up.  The sad thing is, they'd do it, and then there's a good chance that they'd blow the money just like lottery winners and pro sports players tend to do. 

[marty998]

I agree this is pretty fucked up.

I mean... some you guys are just plain openly stating that you'd kill an innocent person. It makes you just as bad as the person who has the gun to your head (and what's to say he doesn't just shoot you after you hit the button anyway... he is a bad guy after all).

This whole thing is just plain wrong.

[arebelspy]

I tried to genuinely picture myself in the situation, and picture pushing the button, and I felt sick.

[Cassie]

I agree. My stomach sort of dropped when I read it.

[a-scho]

There's a movie called "The Box" with Cameron Diaz that is about this very issue.

[soccerluvof4]

I like the indecent proposal better...

[nereo]

I like the indecent proposal better...

Me too.  Hey, I'll sleep with you for $1MM.

[GuitarStv]

There have been some interesting thought experiments along these lines that show how strangely our minds have evolved.

The less hands on the situation and the less visible the consequences are, the more people are going to be OK with them.  You described pushing a button somewhere that killed somebody far far away.  If you specified that they would have to watch the person die, your responses would start skewing a lot more no.  If you specified actually stabbing a person rather than pushing a button, your answers would skew even more towards no.*


We're hard-wired for empathy, but only in certain situations.  Modern society and technology have put us in a position where we can more easily dodge the empathy reflex by abstraction if we choose to do so . . . which is pretty terrifying.




* one of my favourite thought experiments along similar lines (and how we see ethics differently because of the way that our brains are hard-wired for certain types of decision making) is the trolley problem.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

[brooklynguy]

for $x million would you press a button that kills one random person on another continent[?]

A related question is:  Would you give up a nominal sum of money to prevent from being killed a random person on another continent?  Virtually all of us (and I include myself here) effectively answer that question in the negative, every single day, many times over.

We're all steadfast in our certainty that we would reject the proposed offer to enrich ourselves by $x million dollars in exchange for the life of a single random stranger, yet, in essence, we all acquiesce to the deal of retaining our spare pocket change in exchange for the same price.

[arebelspy]

for $x million would you press a button that kills one random person on another continent[?]

A related question is:  Would you give up a nominal sum of money to prevent from being killed a random person on another continent?  Virtually all of us (and I include myself here) effectively answer that question in the negative, every single day, many times over.

We're all steadfast in our certainty that we would reject the proposed offer to enrich ourselves by $x million dollars in exchange for the life of a single random stranger, yet, in essence, we all acquiesce to the deal of retaining our spare pocket change in exchange for the same price.

There's a difference between causing an action and preventing one.  How much of a difference is up for debate, of course.

But I wouldn't want to ruin my new shoes.

[brooklynguy]

There's a difference between causing an action and preventing one.  How much of a difference is up for debate, of course.

I agree.  I intentionally tried to minimize the action/omission distinction to spur thought on how close, with a little mental reframing, our actions-by-omission can seem to come to equalling actions-by-action.

Affirmatively pushing the button may be qualitatively different than passively allowing the button to be pushed, but it seems ludicrous nonetheless to reject the former for any price yet permit the latter even when the cost is trivial.

But I wouldn't want to ruin my new shoes.

To GuitarStv's point, maybe if more of us envisioned the victims flailing in the pond, we'd be more inclined to act.  For me, that's primarily how these conversations help.

[Chaplin]

Those co-worker responses sound like tough talk. The majority who answered that way probably wouldn't do it if they actually had the opportunity.

[FIRE me]

There's a movie called "The Box" with Cameron Diaz that is about this very issue.

And an old Twilight Zone episode:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button,_Button_(The_Twilight_Zone)

With a Zonish plot twist at the end.

[Playing with Fire UK]

for $x million would you press a button that kills one random person on another continent[?]

A related question is:  Would you give up a nominal sum of money to prevent from being killed a random person on another continent?  Virtually all of us (and I include myself here) effectively answer that question in the negative, every single day, many times over.

We're all steadfast in our certainty that we would reject the proposed offer to enrich ourselves by $x million dollars in exchange for the life of a single random stranger, yet, in essence, we all acquiesce to the deal of retaining our spare pocket change in exchange for the same price.

To take this further (into a dark place, not into my opinions), one could press the button, give the $xM to any number of excellent charities, and save a thousand lives. Would you effectively condemn the thousand people to death from malaria/famine/war so you didn't have to deal with your squeamish feelings about pressing a button?

How about if you had the $xM in your hand and had to either press one button to kill one person or a second button to kill a thousand; if you press nothing then the 1001 and you all die.

The action/lack of action is an arguement that I find irrelevant in my decision making, but recognise it's important to others.

[brooklynguy]

To take this further (into a dark place, not into my opinions), one could press the button, give the $xM to any number of excellent charities, and save a thousand lives. Would you effectively condemn the thousand people to death from malaria/famine/war so you didn't have to deal with your squeamish feelings about pressing a button?

How about if you had the $xM in your hand and had to either press one button to kill one person or a second button to kill a thousand; if you press nothing then the 1001 and you all die.

The action/lack of action is an arguement that I find irrelevant in my decision making, but recognise it's important to others.

In your first scenario, there's more difference than just the action/omission distinction.  You'd be actively choosing to bring harm to (an innocent) someone in exchange for saving the lives of others.  Now it's directly analogous to the some of the variants of the trolley problem.

If you would push the button in your first scenario, then presumably you would also agree with the surgeon in the following scenario from the linked Wikipedia article:

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor. Do you support the morality of the doctor to kill that tourist and provide his healthy organs to those five dying persons and save their lives?

[GuitarStv]

Morality gets very subjective when you start weighing lives.

In the transplant case as presented above, the logical decision is to kill the one to save the five.  Most people have a deep seated dislike of this solution though, because it requires that an action commonly seen as immoral take place.  We tend to be OK with the good of the few over the good of the many when the good of the many is dependent on us actually taking some kind of action.

You can tweak the case very slightly to provide wildly different answers too.

- What if the one healthy guy was going to die within a year of a disease that doesn't effect the organs needed?
- What if the one healthy guy was in his 20s, but the five other people were octogenarians?
- What if the one healthy guy was a convicted serial pedophile, or Hitler?
- What if the one healthy guy had caused a car crash with the five, and that's why the five people need transplants?
- What if the one healthy guy could save a billion lives, and not just five?

[brooklynguy]

In the transplant case as presented above, the logical decision is to kill the one to save the five.  Most people have a deep seated dislike of this solution though, because it requires that an action commonly seen as immoral take place.  We tend to be OK with the good of the few over the good of the many when the good of the many is dependent on us actually taking some kind of action.

It's not just that saving the many requires an affirmative action.  It's that, if we are to view everyone as having equal rights, then protecting the rights of the minority is a good that needs to be weighed against the good of saving the lives of the majority, and, in my view, our moral imperative to protect the rights of the healthy guy trumps our moral imperative to try to save the five sick people.

[arebelspy]

In the transplant case as presented above, the logical decision is to kill the one to save the five.  Most people have a deep seated dislike of this solution though, because it requires that an action commonly seen as immoral take place.  We tend to be OK with the good of the few over the good of the many when the good of the many is dependent on us actually taking some kind of action.

It's not just that saving the many requires an affirmative action.  It's that, if we are to view everyone as having equal rights, then protecting the rights of the minority is a good that needs to be weighed against the good of saving the lives of the majority, and, in my view, our moral imperative to protect the rights of the healthy guy trumps our moral imperative to try to save the five sick people.

And there's a big difference when the question is no longer "kill one to save 5" (or a thousand) but "live in slightly less comfort or work slightly longer to save 5" (or a thousand), which is the question we here all face.

[GuitarStv]

In the transplant case as presented above, the logical decision is to kill the one to save the five.  Most people have a deep seated dislike of this solution though, because it requires that an action commonly seen as immoral take place.  We tend to be OK with the good of the few over the good of the many when the good of the many is dependent on us actually taking some kind of action.

It's not just that saving the many requires an affirmative action.  It's that, if we are to view everyone as having equal rights, then protecting the rights of the minority is a good that needs to be weighed against the good of saving the lives of the majority, and, in my view, our moral imperative to protect the rights of the healthy guy trumps our moral imperative to try to save the five sick people.

If the death of the one guy could save a billion people, would your answer change?

And there's a big difference when the question is no longer "kill one to save 5" (or a thousand) but "live in slightly less comfort or work slightly longer to save 5" (or a thousand), which is the question we here all face.

Absolutely.  There's no moral ground to stand on in the original case.  It's really asking 'Would you be an asshole for money if nobody could catch you?'.

[brooklynguy]

If the death of the one guy could save a billion people, would your answer change?

No - it's his choice to make.  I'd like to think that if I were him, I'd choose to sacrifice myself, but I don't think we (society) should make the choice for him.

Absolutely.  There's no moral ground to stand on in the original case.  It's really asking 'Would you be an asshole for money if nobody could catch you?'.

Not the original case, but the case we are all really, actually in -- each of us could make trivial sacrifices in our own lives to literally save the lives of others, yet we choose not to (even if we already do make sacrifices, we choose not to make more beyond wherever we've drawn the line).

[Bertram]

Those co-worker responses sound like tough talk. The majority who answered that way probably wouldn't do it if they actually had the opportunity.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

As for all the philosophical freshman questions - I agree that they are interesting to discuss. I'd have hoped most  would have done that at some point in school or university already. But I fail to see any actual connection to FI other than a lump sum of money being involved somewhere. But then we could rephrase every question that involves money as being FI related (insurance fraud for FI? damage the environment for FI? externalities vs FI? lottery for FI?) - which I don't think they really are. So more of a topic for off topic, no?

Also: The milgram experiment was about obedience and authority, it was not related to money or personal benefit vs someone else pain.

[brooklynguy]

But I fail to see any actual connection to FI

This classic forum post compellingly draws a connection: Your Mustache Might Be Evil.

[GuitarStv]

No - it's his choice to make.  I'd like to think that if I were him, I'd choose to sacrifice myself, but I don't think we (society) should make the choice for him.

Cool.  As long as you're consistent.  Personally, I'd vote to make the decision for him in both cases.  The people who really confuse me are those who have a different response for a billion people vs five.

Not the original case, but the case we are all really, actually in -- each of us could make trivial sacrifices in our own lives to literally save the lives of others, yet we choose not to (even if we already do make sacrifices, we choose not to make more beyond wherever we've drawn the line).

Yeah, you see these decisions every day. . . but there does have to be a line, or you turn into a Randian caricature of a person ruled by others.

[brooklynguy]

Personally, I'd vote to make the decision for him in both cases.

So would you be cool with it if your doctor makes this decision for you the next time you go in for a routine checkup?

[GuitarStv]

Personally, I'd vote to make the decision for him in both cases.

So would you be cool with it if your doctor makes this decision for you the next time you go in for a routine checkup?

I'd prefer if she just put be to sleep so I didn't know what was happening.

[arebelspy]

The people who really confuse me are those who have a different response for a billion people vs five.

Seems like an easy enough explanation--they weight autonomy > 5 lives, but < 1,000,000,000 lives.  What their exact weighting/break point is, I don't know, and neither do they, but I can see a rationale where their answer changes at a certain threshold.  Mine doesn't, but I do understand it.

Of course, I generally think people who are inconsistent with it is because they're going on gut feeling at the second, and haven't really thought it out.  That's the majority of inconsistencies, IMO. But I do think there could be someone with a thought out/developed opinion that is "inconsistent."

As for Bertram's comments, I don't think one can "answer" these in freshman philosophy and be done with the question for their entire lives.  I think one should revisit it, because one's personal values change, amount of empathy changes, experiences change, etc.  It's worth revisiting and thinking about these questions, IMO.

[brooklynguy]

As for Bertram's comments, I don't think one can "answer" these in freshman philosophy and be done with the question for their entire lives.  I think one should revisit it, because one's personal values change, amount of empathy changes, experiences change, etc.  It's worth revisiting and thinking about these questions, IMO.

Hear, hear, especially given that we're not just talking about hypothetical, theoretical kill-buttons and trolley-switches purely out of academic interest, but actual, real-life decisions that we're all making in practice, with actual human lives and welfare (and other consequences that matter) at stake.

[shotgunwilly]

There's a movie called "The Box" with Cameron Diaz that is about this very issue.

Yep. Y'all should go watch this.

[mathlete]

Holy shit, no.

Is this some kind of trick question where OP is gonna come back and say, "Well that's basically what you do when you wear dem Nikes made with slave labor!"?

[Bucksandreds]

Holy shit, no.

Is this some kind of trick question where OP is gonna come back and say, "Well that's basically what you do when you wear dem Nikes made with slave labor!"?

It's not a joke. I think what we're seeing is that those who would do it are either too ashamed to post it online or Mustchians are different. I am also not in investment banking.  I am a dentist at a large institution. The dental assistant I was working with said she would press the button, the other dental assistant wasn't sure. A lady working in the neighboring department said she would press the button and the patient who I've personally known for years that we were speaking with said he would press the button. I was so shocked at the answers that I wanted to get more opinions to see if I was in the minority.

[Neustache]

That's really messed up.  I can't think of a single person I know who would do that.  I mean, I haven't asked, but damn, I'd be horrified if someone I worked with said they'd do it. 

I realize I said I might if a gun was held to a relative (my kids would be the ones I'd be most tempted to protect) but for money?  Not even a temptation. 

[StockBeard]

Think about it though: one chance in 7 billion to kill Kim Jong Un. And be paid for it!

Seriously though, no. I think the only people who would answer "yes" to that have to be non-mustachians, who don't realize that amassing x millions is actually achievable in one's lifetime without having to kill anybody. I wouldn't expect many "yes" answers on this forum.

[woopwoop]

How has nobody linked to this video yet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJQ-LZYAMBQ

[mathlete]

I have heard less objectionable hypotheticals before like, "Would you cut off a finger for a million dollars?"

Do me, the answer to questions like this is still no though.

I can and probably will attain the financial freedom that a million dollars affords just by saving. A million dollars want un-mutilate my hand though.

[Zinsch]

Well, to be honest, I am not sure what I would do (which is the answer I give to most hypothetical questions).

How do you know for sure what you would do in a situation that you never encountered before?

[arebelspy]

How has nobody linked to this video yet? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJQ-LZYAMBQ

That was hilarious.

[woopwoop]

I have heard less objectionable hypotheticals before like, "Would you cut off a finger for a million dollars?"

Do me, the answer to questions like this is still no though.

I can and probably will attain the financial freedom that a million dollars affords just by saving. A million dollars want un-mutilate my hand though.

Yeah, but think of all the pranks you can pull with a fake pinky finger! I dunno, that one would be tempting, especially with the advent of new prosthetics.

[Sofa King]

"we can laugh because we don't know them"---Homer J. Simpson

[Squirrel away]

I wonder what percentage of people would actually do that if they had the chance. I think about 20% of the population would be that ruthless.