Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,009)
Recent Questions
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
- Do people with Down syndrome understand that they have abnormalities? How do they see the world? Are they self-conscious about their illness?
There is no dilemma here. In the first case, a specific person will die with a probability of 50%, in the second-with a probability of 98.01%. The first option is obviously better.
At least some kind of dilemma could be in a more interesting case if either 50 people died – with a 100% probability, or 100 people with a 99% probability.
We have a choice not to do any of these actions, if of course we consider a person not as a performer of 2 given functions, but as a thinking being with free will. If we mean “a situation in a vacuum”, with a strict condition for choosing between these two actions, then in order to save more people, it is more logical to choose the first option. But no one can guarantee you that it will be the best. It�can only be the best with a certain probability. Let's call on the help of mathematicians!
Since the tags are set – morality and ethics, I will add one more thing – I will not wish anyone to make such a choice.