Conversation

A mega thread of philosophical thought experiment polls to see how ethically utilitarian you REALLY are: (note: I use the phrase "net happiness" to mean the sum of all happiness in the future minus the sum of all suffering in the future) [philosophy poll thread]🧡
26
89
In a world of just 10 people, which of these is better? (1) the world has 100 units of net happiness, but one of the 10 people gets all 100 units (the others each get 0) or (2) the world has 99.9 net happiness divided equally among the 10 people (so they each get 9.99 units)
  • 1 person gets all 100
    10.2%
  • each of the 10 get 9.99
    80.2%
  • they're equally good
    2.1%
  • I'm really not sure
    7.4%
967 votesFinal results
4
8
Which of these worlds is better? (1) there are 100 units of net happiness due to everyone being hooked up to machines that convince them they're winning the Nobel Prize at all moments (2) there are 99.9 units of net happiness because people live nice lives that they choose
  • 100 from fake Nobel Prize
    14.7%
  • 99.9 from nice lives
    78.6%
  • they're equally good
    1.7%
  • I'm really not sure
    5%
902 votesFinal results
1
4
Which of these worlds is better? (1) there are 100 units of net happiness because someone instantly and painlessly assassinated a slightly unhappy hermit who DID NOT want to die (2) there are 99.9 units of net happiness because the hermit (who has -0.1 net happiness) is alive
  • 100 since hermit dead
    13%
  • 99.9 since hermit alive
    79.9%
  • they're equally good
    0.9%
  • I'm really not sure
    6.2%
801 votesFinal results
4
3
Which of these worlds is better? (1) there are 1 billion units of net happiness because there are one trillion beings who each have 0.001 net happiness (2) there's slightly less than 1 billion units of net happiness because there are 1 million beings who each have 999.99 units
  • 1B units across 1T people
    13.2%
  • almost 1B units across 1M
    72.7%
  • they're equally good
    3.8%
  • I'm really not sure
    10.3%
717 votesFinal results
2
3
Which of these worlds is better? (1) 1 million units of net world happiness due to you spending $5K on saving a stranger's life (2) slightly less than 1 million units of net happiness because you spent $5K for a non-life saving but important medical procedure for your loved one
  • 1M, saved stranger
    40.2%
  • almost 1M, helped loved
    37.9%
  • they're equally good
    12.5%
  • I'm really not sure
    9.3%
622 votesFinal results
2
3
Which of these worlds is better? (1) You steal all the money ($100 million) from a kindly, completely senile 95-year-old and give it to an effective charity (knowing you won't get caught) (2) You convince a selfish wealthy person to give $98 million to the effective charity
  • $100 million: stolen
    18.9%
  • $98 million: convinced
    72%
  • they're equally good
    4.9%
  • I'm really not sure
    4.1%
628 votesFinal results
1
3
Which of these worlds is better? (1) one innocent person is brutally tortured for 50 years to prevent a minor inconvenience for 10 million people, causing a very slight total increase in net happiness (2) the person isn't tortured so 10 million people are minorly inconvenienced
  • torture more happiness
    9.8%
  • no torture less happiness
    85.1%
  • they're equally good
    0.8%
  • I'm really not sure
    4.3%
604 votesFinal results
4
7
Which of these worlds is better? (1) 1 billion net happiness because the only thing that exists are microscopic, dumb, simple organisms experiencing nothing but orgasmic bliss (2) slightly less than 1 billion net happiness due to an excellent, thriving civilization of humans
  • tiny orgasm organisms
    10.8%
  • thriving civilization
    78.8%
  • they're equally good
    3.5%
  • I'm really not sure
    6.9%
595 votesFinal results
2
4
Which world is better? (1) a woman (using birth control) who unluckily got pregnant aborts her fetus in the 1st trimester because she really doesn't want to have it (but if born, the child would live a very happy life) (2) the woman has the child (more net world happiness)
  • aborts, less happiness
    41.7%
  • has child
    38.4%
  • they're equally good
    5.6%
  • I'm really not sure
    14.3%
568 votesFinal results
Which world is better? (1) a 99.9% chance of minus 1 million net happiness (a hell on earth), with a 1 in 1000 chance of positive 1.1 billion net happiness (a super-duper heaven on earth (2) A pleasantly happy world with a guaranteed 99,000 net happiness (lower expected value)
  • Lottery for super heaven
    5.2%
  • Guaranteed nice world
    91.3%
  • They’re equally good
    0%
  • I’m really not sure
    3.6%
446 votesFinal results
1
3
Which world is better? (1) everyone’s miserable but there’s 0% chance of hell and heaven (2) While alive, everyone has a great life, but there’s a 1 in a billion chance hell exists - it lasts forever (and no heaven). This means negative infinity expected value of net happiness.
  • miserable, no hell
    29.8%
  • happy tiny chance of hell
    43%
  • they’re equally good
    2.3%
  • I’m really not sure
    24.9%
342 votesFinal results
2
5
Which world is better? (1) 100 people exist, they each have 0.001 net happiness yearly (slightly better than not existing), and each lives 100,000 years giving 10,000 total (2) 100 people exist, they have 1 net happiness each year, and each lives 99.99 years, giving 9,999 total
  • 10,000 from long lives
    15.7%
  • 9,999 from 99.99 yr lives
    73%
  • they're equally good
    3.9%
  • I'm really not sure
    7.5%
281 votesFinal results
1
4
Which world is better? (1) A human is tortured for as many hours as it takes to produce 1 unit of suffering (i.e., -1 units of net happiness) (2) A pig is tortured for as many hours as it takes to produce 1.01 units of suffering (i.e., -1.01 units of net happiness)
  • 1 unit of human suffering
    22.3%
  • 1.01 of pig suffering
    55.5%
  • they're equally good
    5.1%
  • I'm really not sure
    17.2%
256 votesFinal results
5
4
Which world is better? (1) An advanced alien species decides to kill everyone on a civilized planet (instantly + painlessly), replacing each of them with a similar person that's dispositionally happier (slightly raising total net happiness) (2) The alien species doesn't do that
  • replaces all the people
    23%
  • leaves the people as is
    68.1%
  • they're equally good
    1.9%
  • I'm really not sure
    7%
270 votesFinal results
3
3
Which world is better? (1) a utilitarian person (seeking to do good) tortures 100 innocent people because they know that it (somehow, with certainty) will prevent a bad person from (equally badly) torturing 101 innocent people (2) the bad person tortures the 101 innocent people
  • utilitarian tortures 100
    48.2%
  • bad person tortures 101
    29.8%
  • they're equally good
    7.4%
  • I'm really not sure
    14.7%
272 votesFinal results
6
3
It’s not obvious to me that (2) necessarily means more net world happiness. We need to know how unhappy the prospective mother would be giving birth and either raising the child or having it adopted. We also need to know the circumstances (eg, is she coerced?)