[ceratsiv]

There's a group of 1,000 people who are poisoned and on the verge of death. There are two types of antidotes, but only enough time and resources to make one of the two.

Antidote (A) has a possibility of 50/50. There's a 50% chance that everyone in the group lives, and a 50% chance everyone in the group dies.
Antidote (B) guarantees that 33% of the group will survive, but the remainder will die.

Which option do you pick and why?

(That was a question on an ethics exam I've taken. Obv it's not realistic and there's no right/wrong, but I'm curious how others would judge. Personally, I chose option A because it felt like there was at least an equal attempt at saving everyone, rather than option B which felt like you would be giving up on 66% of the population from start. But that's just my thoughts, what are yours?)

[reptar4]

Hmm it's a very tough one, I do like your thought that A is showing that you are attempting to save everyone, but also at the same time with B you are 100% that people will survive, so you're taking less of a risk on people's lives. You would feel very guilty for the 67% of people you didn't save, but the same could be said if the 50% chance goes wrong.

I think I'd go with option A just because it has the chance of saving everyone, whereas eventhough B is saving a percentage, A gives you the ability to save 100% if lucky.

[itsyaboii1532]

I am not a risk taker when stakes are high like this. I feel like option B is the choice for me. You ate certain that lives will be saved as for option A, idk how id live with myself if everyone ended up dead. Save the lived you know you can save.

[LeFriedChicken]

If they're all complete strangers, I'll take the 50/50. For sure most people would want to risk to save everyone.


But a good thing to know is that you cant save everyone. Live with the sin you're more comfortable with

[axel2354]

Option B for sure.

My biggest regret would be that everybody dies when I would have been able to save 33% of the group.

[Jay M]

A. high risk high reward

There's a 50% chance that people will die, which means that 1000 people will survive if you are going to use A with success
the scenario didn't state that there's a 50/50 in every person, which made it a lot easier, antidote could save all 1000 people it's all or nothing

B. low reward high risk
there's a guaranteed 33% of people will survive, in that sense the  you will be killing the reaming 66%


i would take A, since it's the most optimal way to maximize my gains. since in both scenario you will be killing
someone or saving someone either way, why not risk it all or lose it all

[Omgddfan]

If you are thinking from an ethical standpoint, you prioritize the ones you know you can save. The 50/50 actually makes it pretty easy. Knowing you will guaranteed save %33 means you are obligated to save those %33. They actually have the priority over the ones who are still hanging in the balance.

[pftftftftft]

Option B has better optics since saving 330 people looks a lot better after you've already killed everyone, but Option A has the higher expected value and is statistically better.

But none of that matters cause here's how it would work it the real world:
Waste time arguing about which one to make, take too long to do anything killing everybody, tell everyone we went with option A and it didn't work out, and use the funding we didn't spend making the antidote to reward the drug manufacturers that didn't actually do anything.

[Maxou125689]

I will choose option B, because for A you have a great chance that everyone die( 50 %), the A is riskier for me
And with option B you have guarantee that persons survive even if this is 33%

[Kinestacya]

I pick A, i will live with the blame of people dying no matter what, so i may as well try and save everyone, even if only to make myself feel better at night.

[spamgk]

I'd have to go with A -- a coin flip is a pretty darn good chance all things considered.