They are staying outside, even if there wasn't a killer among them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well...This is the exact same problem you face every day when you and your family venture out into society. In this case, you have the option of closing the door to this risk. In life, generally most people have no real way to protect themselves against someone who might be out to get them (including the very wealthy.) Your risk is reduced quite a bit if you are so rich that you pay a former WWE wrestler to be your personal body guard. Even then, he cannot stop an assassin's bullet.
Live an ethical life among society so that even if you die at age 22, there would not be much guilt in your life.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is this really "the exact same problem you face every day" even in your mind? You can't really think you're making a decision that drastically effects the odds of your loved ones survival every day, or can you?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes it is. I am not facing it everyday; we all are. But we have made this decision so many times since birth, that we realize that the odds our family running into the rare psychopath is quite low. So, we accept that there are certain risks of life that just cannot be avoided.
This is usually only a big problem for people who like to worry about conditions that they have no control over. The reason to resign to certain risks is that taking over-reaching precautions would drastically restrict the ability to live from day to day.
The main flaw of all of these life-altering dilemmas that I have heard over the years is Guilt Transference. These storied dilemmas have the effect of transferring the responsibility of the outcome to the reader, or the person trapped with a few hard choices. This is ethically incorrect. The responsibility for someone being killed lies with the psychopath, not you. The responsibility for people dying in a blizzard lies with Nature or the Act of God.
Another one: "You have ten minutes to push a button or not. If you do, your father dies. If you do not, your mother dies." Believing that this is a dilemma is an incorrect transference of decision-making to the target. The decision and guilt for killing one of your parents lies strictly with the murderer--not you sitting in front of a button. Psychologically, it helps to not participate at all; nevertheless, even if you push the button, you have no link whatsoever to why your father died. A psychopath decided to kill one of your parents and falsely tried to draw you into his hellish guilt by forcing you to decide which.
The dilemma-maker has removed the possibility of a democratic vote by the 100 people in the resort to decide what to do with their advantageous resource (the warmth, shelter, and food of the resort) Another creative solution which is proscribed from proper consideration is swapping 1:1 your own personal citizenship in the presently-constituted resort. Many people (myself included) would like to think that they would chose this martyr-option. Nevertheless, it is too easy to say this right now, typing in front of a computer for a hypothetical event. You cannot "pretend" hero. Until the actual scenario presents itself, you cannot really claim such a serious decision.
Again, the dilemma-maker is trying to force you away from a possibly better creative solution and create False Guilt if the chosen decision is more ethically poisoned than another. The guilt of that decision lies with the person who is preventing you from making a more creative solution.
Comment has been collapsed.
You may have a point I just don't see how it applies to this hypothetical dilemma. The point of it all is for you to think about and make a hard decision, not to chicken out and alter the terms. It may or may not be a well thought out dilemma that everyone can agree with but it is what it is
Also it seems to me our understanding of "the exact same" differs quite substatially
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. I probably referred to the word "exact" poorly. OK. Decisive under the condition, CHOICE B: Let them all IN, based on my aforementioned perspectives.
The psychopath is going to kill someone either way--there iss no certainty that the killer will die if left in the blizzard. OP gave "only a chance." By letting in the group, you only change the population from which the psychopath has to choose for her/his victims. Now, my friends, my family, and I are in that population. Nevertheless, I have saved quite a few people at the cost of no lives from the killer, even if 15% die in the blizzard. If 85% of the refugees are going to die in the blizzard, the math works out even better, though the killer is very likely NOT to be terminated, continuing his possibilities for terror, the 85% saved is presumably much greater than the total population that the killer would eventually kill in his lifetime.
The question only becomes interesting if the crowd is 50 and a 2% chance to die in the blizzard (1 person is certain to die). Is that 1 persons life valuable enough to expose your own population to the population within which the killer is certain to kill?
Again, it is too easy to make this decision now. Dangerously presuming that my choice is the enlightened choice to make under the easy 85% and 15% scenarios, explaining to that spouse or child who is looking over our shoulder can be brutal in making the ethical choice. "Why are you letting the bad man in? Apparently, you do not love us." This can be an unethical manipulation for someone who hides behind their naivety or false expectations of loyalty.
Comment has been collapsed.
Since I get to decide, I must be the Mayor.
As a confirmed townie, I suggest to everyone else that we hang the guy talking his ass off. Even if that one isn't the SK and town ends up losing the game, it's still worth it, because spammers are a nuissance. Also, is there an arso? They were crap before, but they're clearly OP now since the changes. :3
Though it probably doesn't matter, town is always too dumb to listen... :(
Ok, you boring woman, don't fret. I'd keep them out. Much like 95% of the folks here would if they were being honest. Just my 2 cents. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I let them in but i isolate my family etc. from the others so sk cant reach them
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll kick them back to their bus and let the serial killer kill them all, then I'll go give him a cookie filled with rat poison. And then I'll go back to the lodge and find out that there's a second serial killer. Then idk... I'll just offer him all the food, because I would probly puke from half of it in exchange for him to let me have some fun too...
Joke aside. If that happens Im not the one who's going to open the door the first place, so IDC what will the guy who opens it does it. I'll probly not be in the lodge the first place as I hate been in places with lots of people or lots of snow...
Comment has been collapsed.
The rules are too inflexible, in a real life situation I think there will be ways to prevent the deaths. Also it is not like serial killers kill every other second, they usually kill a few people in their whole life time. I'd let them in. I won't leave people to death, just because I'm inside and they're outside...
If this is a metaphor for refugees, I think 'serial killer' didn't fit there, it reminds me of somewhere else which isn't famous for refugees but other things...
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I agree the metaphor doesn't work at all.
''However, you know that there's a maniacal, clero-fascist, terrorist piece of scum hiding among them. If you let them in, he's sure to kill almost all of the people from your group. The conditions are the following:''
Here I fixed it for you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, thanks for the fix. It'd be pretty easy to spot the guy fitting that description and leave him outside.
Hmm on second thought, taking him inside and put him under surveillance in a locked room might be safer.
If we think about a real situation, without any kind of weapons, he/she might not be that dangerous anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would go outside myself and let others make the decision.
For all seriousness though, I would let them in. Either way people will die and I'm not the one who choose who will. Being from my family doesn't make them more important. But all children are more important either way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why does the serial killer have to kill anyone in this situation? It's not like they need to kill daily to keep up with their obsession. You're all in the same boat and he's probably more worried about his own life than taking others. Let them all in and live happily ever after.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is no correct answer to the situation, it's intentionally creating a no win scenario, the correct answer would be to protect the children, as they have the longest lives worth saving, and are nearly impossible to be the serial killer. if necessary
As the scenario is, the lesser evil is to refuse all outside parties, the other choice would only lead to more possibe/probable deaths.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would let them in, put them in the same room and wait for the killer to get killed by bunch of angry refugees. 😂
Comment has been collapsed.
If we know there's a dangerous serial killer amongs them, then I'd reject them. I'd offer that I call for help (so the authorities would know about them and their broken transport), but I wouldn't let them in.
Yes, it sounds very much like the current immigrant crisis and it's sad how majority of people is just completely oblivious to the threats it poses O.o
Comment has been collapsed.
Let them in. I hate my family and can always get more friends. Oh wait the killer could kill me? F* that. They can freeze.
alternate answer: I never answer the door because I'm too busy with my backlog
Comment has been collapsed.
Let them in under condition you will tie them all/lock them in a safe place. You save everyone, avoid people getting killed, let police deal with serial killer after snow melts.
Comment has been collapsed.
How so? You can't know if the killer strikes again. And if he does for certain, he sure will do the same to the people outside as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
that's what i've been telling some people and they don't get it.
you know for sure some will die in your group -vs- there's a chance some from the other group will die.
based on the rules of this game, without making up or assuming stuff like beliefs or real-life scenarios, it's pretty easy to pick an option.
Comment has been collapsed.
Serial killers get a bad rap. The poor guy probably just needs a hug (or an act of kindness from someone who lets him in during a blizzard),
Let em all in and give them all your food: humans can survive for weeks without food, and you can melt snow for water supplies.
Also this whole thing of being trapped in a building with a bunch of strangers and a killer sounds an awful lot like the plot of Danganronpa so, being a bit of a weeb, I'd probably secretly enjoy the mystery, sneaking around puffing my pipe with a magnifying glass looking for clues at the crime scenes.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.