Why do people have such problems with hypothetical questions?

[burningdragoon]

Sniparoo

I see your point. I still think it comes down to the type of question. The kill 1 to save many is a decent hypothetical. I would say no to that as well... for pretty much the reason mentioned.

The doctor one, though, is a good hypothetical. And for that one my answer wouldn't be to try to save 6, it would be "fuck that's a decision I never want to have to make". Anyone who says all 6 is... not wrong, but missing the point and I'll give you that one.

However, what was kinda getting at and what this fellow did get at:

People are going to answer the question you ask, not the question you meant, because they can't read your mind. That's what I was saying. If all you want is "would you let someone like that go for money?" then ask that. would you allow someone like bin laden to live for $10million dollars.

The simpler the question the better. The more specific and grounded in reality the hypothetical is, the better chance someone is going to try to poke holes. Questions like the doctor one are good because that is an entirely reasonable dilemma.


Oh oh oh, and the two scenarios you gave work well with my whole "saving lives is not a math problem" thing I end up saying whenever stuff like that comes up. Especially the doctor one since the math answer is try to save 6 when really the less you try to save, the more you probably will save.

 

[burningdragoon]

Spoiler: WARNING! Very Silly Example

What would you do if your arms turned into two Penguins that hated each other?

Wow. That is seriously the best hypothetical question I've seen on this forum ever.

I think I would put on a tuxedo and have a triple-tux brawl.

 

[Wondermint13]

Yep.. that sounds like the Escapist community for ya.
But also in general yes. Makes you wonder if they even read it right sometimes. depending on how you wrote it..

 

[BonsaiK]

Maybe its a psychological thing about rules really.

Very warm. It's a psychological thing about rules that seem arbitrary and stupid, which is the domain of 100% of hypotheticals by definition. Every person reading this lives a life where they have to obey many rules. Some of these rules are sensible, other rules often seem pointless, badly-considered, or even worse, self-serving only to an individual or small collective who benefits heavily at the expense of others following said rules. Get all these people together on a forum, and throw even more arbitrary nonsense rules at them even as some sort of game, and the first thing that's going to happen is the knee-jerk "More rules? Fuck this shit!" response is going to kick in, and they will sabotage the game any way they can. They'll do this in preference to staying out of the discussion quite a lot of the time because a safe place where people can vent their hatred of imaginary arbitrary nonsense imposed on them in lieu of being able to do the same in daily society is an appealing second-best.

 

[Sneeze]

Because its fun trying to break them. :3

I like outside the box thinking.

As for Bin Laden I'd probably just take the money, donate most of it to charity. I don't want that kinda cash.

 

[Lilani]

But this way of thinking still lives on. Even some very educated and smart people can never and will never accept or be able to imagine a hypothetical scenario. So they avoid the question. Demand more alternatives. Make up their own alternatives. Reject the scenario all together but still wish to participate.

Its the same people who demand third options in polls like "Don't care either way"

I think it should be noted that most of the time, these "hypothetical" situations aren't very well thought out. I remember one that went something like you are on a space expedition with 6 others (each of a different ethnicity) and a robot. You run out of fuel and get trapped on a toxic planet, but there is natural fuel you can retrieve. The problem is because it's toxic, one person can get the fuel and bring it back, but they will die. And the robot will corrode and die. The question was, who do you choose? It was one of those "can you make a moral choice without being racist?" situations.

Just about everybody said the robot, because it's a freaking robot. There's no moral dilemma at all if you've got a robot there. The person tried to argue that the robot was sentient and whatnot, but that's what robots would be for in that situation. To be disposable.

My point is, these so-called "hypothetical" situations are made by regular people, and most everyone knows that. They don't think about it too hard because, nine times out of ten, the person who wrote it didn't spend much time on it anyway.

Also, because it's on the Internet, there are no real consequences. There are no "real" barriers to keep them from making up an alternative, so how seriously an individual takes it depends entirely upon their own conviction. And since the Internet has a sort of "anti-conviction" force field which desaturates even the strongest conviction, there aren't many squares out there who will actually read one of those and stick only with the answers they're given. That's just not hip, daddy-o. It's much cooler to show how much of a sly fox you are and try to trick the system. Fight the power, man!

 

[Kebabco]

Because hypothetical question of ask people to put a price on their morals.

For example: Would you rape your mother if it meant saving your life? A lot of people would answer they would rather die, while if they were actually present in such a situation they would do anything to survive. So no matter what the person answering the question says; he/she is either an irrational suicidal hypocrite or an immoral piece of shit.

So yeah, asking certain hypothetical questions offends a lot of people.

 

[Me55enger]

Were you asking a hypothetical question?

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

That has a lot to do with the fact that the answers you provide are what's known as a false dichotomy. When presented with only two possible answers, people will immediately set to work on coming up with the ones that were deliberately omitted, and then choose the best one, as opposed to being limited to two very polarizing answers that are usually both a compromise on one's own code of ethics. If you want to prevent this, change the context of the question so as to obviate the answers you're trying to avoid.

For example, instead of "Osama bin Laden offers you $10m to let him go", say "the Taliban has you surrounded and you've got one bullet left in your pistol, which is currently pointed at Osama bin Laden's face. Fearing for his life, he offers you ten million dollars and promises that you can go unharmed as well. However, he warns, trying to find him again will be literally impossible since his next hiding place is absolutely perfect, and he will presumably continue to formulate terrorist plots. There is very little chance of surviving if you try to do anything heroic, but surprisingly, you will not be shot in the back if you walk away with the money. What do you do?"

See? It's all about eliminating the extraneous variables within the scenario that can be used to change the outcome to something other than what is offered. If someone gives you a third option, it'll at least have to be creative.