I'd let them in.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Comment has been collapsed.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
That's exactly why you should keep them out. There's a couple hundred persons already with you. Why risk ALL of them for this tiny little group that shows up? Your logic is the exact opposite of the needs of the many.
Comment has been collapsed.
this tiny little group
You interpreted crowd to mean a tiny group. Interesting.
I interpreted it to mean a much larger group than "tiny."
Comment has been collapsed.
Well they had /a/ transport, didn't they? That broke down? Near a ski lodge? Not many transports that can get to near ski lodge, and the ones that can are no cruise liners nor are they passenger trains. Most logically you're looking at half a dozen to a dozen persons if it's a typical means of transportation and a few dozen if they somehow were driving around a 3 tier bus.
Either way, it's impossible with the location and weather that their group size could ever have rivaled your group of hundreds of persons. Doesn't really feel like an interpretation to me. Just what's possible under the circumstances.
Assuming "hundreds" meant as little as 200, the needs of the many argument can't really argue for the ones showing up unless they
A. Flew a ship up a mountain and crash landed.
B. Were in a train in a town near the resort and for some reason decided to go all the way up to the skiing resort instead of stay in the warmth of the train or the town in the middle of a blizzard.
C. They're lying about their transport and are actually a cult of cannibals that want to eat everyone in the lodge.
This gets worse as I think about it. KEEP THEM OUT!
Comment has been collapsed.
For the sake of playing Devil's advocate --
Ski lodges are typically located at or near the base of a mountain, to make them accessible -- and also since skiers end up at the bottom of the mountain. Buses and shuttles are not uncommon at all. .The words used -- "their transport" -- don't necessarily mean one vehicle, as transport also means "the means by which people or products are conveyed from one place to another". It could mean several vehicles. The OP didn't say "hundreds", the OP said "a couple of hundred". Couple - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/couple . The OP also uses the word "blizzard", but what the OP calls a blizzard and what you or I call a blizzard could be three very different things. Most blizzards I would call "a snowstorm". Even words like "sick" (a cold? hypothermia?), "children" (small children? teens?), "few", or "crowd" can mean any number of things.
I could go on, but I'm hoping this proves my point that personal interpretation is a big part of reading something like the OP unless extremely detailed information is given. As it stands, I read the information given, interpreted it personally, and responded. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I can understand that. I don't agree with most of it, but I can agree to disagree and I do understand where you are coming from.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can easily take turns on watch (and if the serial killer is smart on not getting caught it's too crowded to do anything) and you can take a seperate room and lock it for you and your family.
Comment has been collapsed.
I reject the rules. You can't know that there is a killer in the group. And you can't know that the killer will kill again. So many unknowns. Uninteresting question. Come back and try again.
Comment has been collapsed.
I reject your rejection. Uninteresting answer. Come back and try again, or don't
Comment has been collapsed.
Let them in, kill them all and eat their meat. All the people in the resort will probably agree to become cannibal when there is no more food.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would let them in, and then eat them if necessary. ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
If we are already snowed in, how can they even reach the door to knock on it?
How do I know there is a killer among them if I never met them?
Comment has been collapsed.
If I heard it on the radio, then the authorities can provide a description. Hell, they seem to already know where the killer is in general, so as soon as the blizzard stops, they can send their guys over. Separate those that match the description, put them to custody, wait for the blizzard to end and the police to show up. If it is a ski resort, there is plenty of rope and rooms to do that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you're supposed to imagine whatever you are able to make the situation work for you, if you cant simply don't answer ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
What do you mean? This solution seems to fit into the provided parameters of the situation.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree. If it's a think-yourself-out-of-this-situation game, then the specifics matter. They are the whole game. If it is some other kind of game, I don't get it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then I would suggest changing the topic title. And the description. Right now your original post is a situational game, not an ethical thought experiment.
Comment has been collapsed.
I Would upvote this if I could. This is indeed more interesting because of this unintended, to me surprising, ambiguity.
Comment has been collapsed.
Unlike the trolley problem, however, your setup is weak and invites questions and common-sense objections. Try to reframe your situation in order to get interesting answers.
Comment has been collapsed.
I could be wrong but I don't think it's about thinking yourself out of the situation but rather a moral dilemma.
Comment has been collapsed.
Reminds me of the santa episode of Tales from the Crypt :3
Comment has been collapsed.
Details are a situation. Without details, you cannot solve a problem, you can only shoot with a cannon at a sparrow and hope something happens.
If we cannot get any information, then the solution is separating the newcomers into smaller groups, keeping constant surveillance, and if the killer doesn't reveal itself, then let the authorities handle it when they arrive.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's fascinating that your'e still trying to avoid the rules :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Because they are not applicable in a real-world situation. I am a pragmatist. I deal with real problems when i need to face them. Thought experiments never amounted to anything, even actual moral dilemma investigations use situational experiments, like the infamous Stanford prison experiment. People can say all the bullshit they want, but a character is only revealed in real-life.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here but if you're saying that some people would fail to properly estimate how they'd react in a real life situation I think you're entirely correct
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, that. When you see people like me answering something other it is because the original question is imprecise and vague, yet wants to select between two pre-set answers. Most people will say a "neither because those are not the only possible answers to the question" to that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except there's no escaped serial killer among refugees and that changed everything. That's why I chose not to take the people in. It would've been different otherwise.
Comment has been collapsed.
This actually reminds me of the refugee crisis. o.O I'm serious. There are some bad apples coming along with the refugees and, when a country is accepting them, the country's resources are tight. If nobody will accept them, they will probably not survive. So, I'll obviously let them in. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
let them in under the condition they stay together in groups of at least three people - if they don't agree, kick them out.
yes, sticking together in a group includes going to the potty. screw privacy, this is about survival
Comment has been collapsed.
Option C: I kill all of them (including my friends and family), turns out I was the serial killer all along! Plottwist! (I'm kidding, obviously)
Comment has been collapsed.
Let them in. But when I know that one of them is a killer, why would I give him the opportunity to kill again? In a large resort with hundreds of people, there should certainly be a way to lock them all in, till the snow melts and the police can take care of finding the murderer among them.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you opened the door they'll come. Angry crowd always win.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd probably let them in.
A few deaths will happen, but not letting anyone in will just cause more.
Comment has been collapsed.
Joke aside the whole Refuge x Terrorists thing is not a topic i want to participate in .
ppl being treated like livestock in various parts of europe , getting acused of being terrorists just cause of nation / religion ...
Cant w8 till the aliens controlling trump decide that Earth is not worth keeping and just blow it up to build that space highway ...
Comment has been collapsed.
I can be honest enough to say I wouldn't risk the life of anyone I care about, that includes my dog. It's interesting to see so many trying to either ignore or change the rules
Edit: The classic train switch example would probably have been as informative and quite a bit easier to explain without everyone trying to avoid the rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
Although a very creative solution it's usually not part of the problem :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd probably let them in. Even if it means someone will kill some people, that's still better then effectively killing a lot more people yourself (because sick people and children don't have a high chance of survival if stuck outside in a blizzard I think, especially with a serial killer among them).
That said, this is just a hypothetical situation. It doesn't matter what people say here, if they ever get into such a situation, there is a high chance they'll act differently. Also, this assumes you're the one (and you alone) making the descision. In a situation like this there is likely to be heavy discussion among the people already inside and a high chance that a descision will be made as a group.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd ask the other people already in the shelter and put it to a vote. Who put me in charge (they were clearly insane)?
Also: "You and your family/friends are at a ski resort...so you're trapped there with a couple of hundred strangers"
wat?
Comment has been collapsed.
You cannot prevent any deaths sounds like a weird rule for the "Thought experiment" . . . makes it into just a choose a possibility of people getting harmed or people getting harmed. 🤡
Comment has been collapsed.
It's more like either a few people and maybe someone your care about getting killed or more people getting killed
Comment has been collapsed.
This is a lever pulling problem. If you don't pull the lever the train runs over X people. If you pull the lever you divert the train onto a different track, but Y people will die. But the train is either the weather or a serial killer in this version.
In real life, if I know there's a serial killer why would I even open the door? It's kindof like the big bad wolf asking the 3 little pigs pigs to "let me in"
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll let them in but only if they let me pee on them.
Comment has been collapsed.
if those are the only rules, if you let them in innocent people will die, and some of them might be people you care about, family or friends. if you don't strangers will, along with a psycho ass (meh).
gtfo, i say.
tolerance is a virtue of those who want to pass as holder of a higher morality, in most cases to compensate other deficiencies. in this case (and many other, sadly real and current) is a very dangerous course of action because it is based on feelings and false hopes, completely bypassing the logical analysis that a choice like this would imply. sadly people find out only after smashing theyr face in it.
Comment has been collapsed.
If I let them in or not, the killer will always kill some people, because he is already in a group of possible victims. And I could let them in and lock them on the rooms while we stay on the kitchen, or something like that
Comment has been collapsed.
uhm, interesting. Risking my own life never actually entered my mind. I guess it's an uncommon component of moral dilemmas or I'm just so full of myself that I think a serial killer wouldn't pose a threat :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would he kill more people inside than out? At what pace does he kill?
Comment has been collapsed.
That explanation and specially the last part reminded me a lot of the Redeker Plan in World War Z.
Great... now I'm angry again that they fucked up the movie so much.
Comment has been collapsed.
This whole thing is over-simplified anyway and leaves way too much to be read into it.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's an interesting angle but I think it's not following the stated dilemma rigorously enough. This would probably make the decision quite a bit easier to a lot of people.
Comment has been collapsed.
The lack of useful information leads to the wide variety of answers. General terms like "few" or "crowd" don't lend themselves well to making an informed decision.
Just reading the replies to the thread has me going back and forth several times on my answer, but only because of varying interpretations of particular qualifiers. :X
Comment has been collapsed.
This is because people are either introducing their own components, altering the composition of the dilemma, or just shamelessly altering the stated rules.
I don't think I've ever seen such a high portion trying to avoid the dilemma before
Comment has been collapsed.
i wouldn't let them in.
wait outside and find the killer, sort the situation and then you can enter.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.