• m0darn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I think these scenarios might be easier to analyze if we made them a bit more realistic.

    This an analogy for military intervention. If we empower our military to be proactive, we can save one "good guy"TM by killing 3 bystanders. But if NATO’s adversaries are participating too we lose 3 of our "good guy"TM

    • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think the abstract nature is one of the strengths. If you ask someone a question about military intervention, their pre-existing views towards military intervention will heavily bias their answer.

      • m0darn@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah that’s a good point. Maybe I should amend my statement to say something like:

        If this seems like an absurd hypothetical, consider reframing it. Multiply all the numbers by a factor of between 1,000 to 1,000,000 and make them “our soldiers”, “bystanders” and “enemy soldiers” respectively.