Hypothetical: What Would You Do?

[United States of Natan]

Please do not respond with answers that do not address the scenario.

In a discussion with some friends, a hypothetical was posed regarding the ethics of earlier intervention (greater good theory and all that), even when you know early intervention will fail, in a scenario where later intervention is less likely to fail.

Let's say you're a Detective. You're investigating killings. You know exactly when and where the next killing will be, as well as information on future killings. You are the only one who can stop it and the only one who knows of it. You can try to stop it. However, you also know that if you attempt to stop this next killing, you WILL fail, and you will be seriously injured or even killed, thus severely inhibiting or even eliminating your ability to stop the killings, meaning the spree continues on without anyone to stop it. However, if you do not intervene in this one, you will not be injured, and the odds of stopping stopping the killer and future killings is significantly greater as well.

So what do you do? Will you:
-Valiantly attempt to stop the next killing, even knowing that you'll fail and will be highly unlikely to stop future ones?
-Hold off on intervening and instead attempt to stop future ones, with far greater chances of success for the future, despite knowing the next particular target will be killed?

Personally, I would reluctantly attempt to stop the future killings. I believe that in many cases, the greater good theory must be applied. If only I can stop the killings, and I know I'll be unable to stop future killings if I try to stop the next one, and that I will fail at trying to stop the next one, then I must do what's necessary to protect the most people. Simply being valiant for the sake of righteousness when failure is inevitable doesn't help anyone. While some might say that the moral thing to do is to try and protect the next person, even at the cost of your life, even when you know you'll fail, I believe that the moral action is to attempt to protect as many lives as possible, rather than undertake an act which you know will fail and will prevent you from saving others in a doomed attempt to protect one person.

[Olthar]

If I have some sort of divine insight that tells me I will absolutely fail, then why would I try? If I look into the future and see that a particular course of action cannot possibly succeed, the I will choose a different option. To do otherwise is simply moronic.

[Ethel mermania]

I am a cop, I have the department's resources behind me, I dont think the scenario is pratical.

[Napkiraly]

Stop the future ones.

[Thermodolia]

I am a cop, I have the department's resources behind me, I dont think the scenario is pratical.

Pretty much this. Not to mention that your a cop with future sense, so you can pretty much trap the dude

[United States of Natan]

I am a cop, I have the department's resources behind me, I dont think the scenario is pratical.

For whatever reason, only you can stop it. Maybe you don't have time to get the resources of the department, or you can't trust anyone else in the department. I don't know. But regardless, you're on your own.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't respond with answers that don't address the scenario, please.

[Olthar]

I am a cop, I have the department's resources behind me, I dont think the scenario is pratical.

For whatever reason, only you can stop it. Maybe you don't have time to get the resources of the department, or you can't trust anyone else in the department. I don't know. But regardless, you're on your own.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't respond with answers that don't address the scenario, please.

If it's a flawed scenario with holes in the internal logic, then what's the point?

[Andronnia]

Sticking to the rules of such a situation and not making up a third answer or additional factors, I would wait to trap him and prevent future killings, dooming the current potential victim. In the end, this answer causes the least amount of death which influenced my answer.

[Leppikania]

I really don't see any reason to try to stop the next killing. If you know that by trying you will not only will you fail to save anybody, but seriously hinder your ability to stop future killings, why should you?

[United States of Natan]

Sticking to the rules of such a situation and not making up a third answer or additional factors, I would wait to trap him and prevent future killings, dooming the current potential victim. In the end, this answer causes the least amount of death which influenced my answer.

With all due respect, It does say "severely inhibiting or even eliminating your ability to stop the killings, meaning the spree continues on without anyone to stop it." That implies that by trying to stop this killing, you will be unable to stop the others, ergo a trap technically doesn't work within the rules, because it enables you to stop the future killings.

I really don't see any reason to try to stop the next killing. If you know that by trying you will not only will you fail to save anybody, but seriously hinder your ability to stop future killings, why should you?

Admittedly, that's essentially the point. The discussion with my friends was a debate over whether or not to try to impeach Donald Trump immediately. My argument was that Democrats should not, because it will assuredly fail. Senate Republicans aren't going to allow it. And by impeaching him but failing to secure a conviction, it only serves to exonerate Trump and galvanize his base for the 2020 election, and could very well cost Democrats both the 2020 Presidential election, and our house majority. That's essentially the comparison made in this hypothetical. By trying to impeach Trump now and inevitably failing, it only puts the Democrats into a weaker position going into 2020. But by holding off and instead simply blocking his agenda, getting concessions from him, and investigating him, Democrats are far more likely to win in 2020.

[Infected Mushroom]

Sticking to the rules of such a situation and not making up a third answer or additional factors, I would wait to trap him and prevent future killings, dooming the current potential victim. In the end, this answer causes the least amount of death which influenced my answer.

With all due respect, It does say "severely inhibiting or even eliminating your ability to stop the killings, meaning the spree continues on without anyone to stop it." That implies that by trying to stop this killing, you will be unable to stop the others, ergo a trap technically doesn't work within the rules, because it enables you to stop the future killings.

I really don't see any reason to try to stop the next killing. If you know that by trying you will not only will you fail to save anybody, but seriously hinder your ability to stop future killings, why should you?

Admittedly, that's essentially the point. The discussion with my friends was a debate over whether or not to try to impeach Donald Trump immediately. My argument was that Democrats should not, because it will assuredly fail. Senate Republicans aren't going to allow it. And by impeaching him but failing to secure a conviction, it only serves to exonerate Trump and galvanize his base for the 2020 election, and could very well cost Democrats both the 2020 Presidential election, and our house majority. That's essentially the comparison made in this hypothetical. By trying to impeach Trump now and inevitably failing, it only puts the Democrats into a weaker position going into 2020. But by holding off and instead simply blocking his agenda, getting concessions from him, and investigating him, Democrats are far more likely to win in 2020.

but your friend surely must believe there is something to be GAINED from impeaching Trump.

Maybe they believe there is a rate of success however remote...

Maybe they value the damage to Trump's reputation over any particular party winning (i.e., its worth it for the Democrats to lose if only we get to make Trump suffer)

it's not entirely parallel to this is it?

[Infected Mushroom]

As you've set it up and with my divine foresight of the outcomes and probabilities, there is no reason to try and save the next victim. I choose to wait.

[United States of Natan]

With all due respect, It does say "severely inhibiting or even eliminating your ability to stop the killings, meaning the spree continues on without anyone to stop it." That implies that by trying to stop this killing, you will be unable to stop the others, ergo a trap technically doesn't work within the rules, because it enables you to stop the future killings.

Admittedly, that's essentially the point. The discussion with my friends was a debate over whether or not to try to impeach Donald Trump immediately. My argument was that Democrats should not, because it will assuredly fail. Senate Republicans aren't going to allow it. And by impeaching him but failing to secure a conviction, it only serves to exonerate Trump and galvanize his base for the 2020 election, and could very well cost Democrats both the 2020 Presidential election, and our house majority. That's essentially the comparison made in this hypothetical. By trying to impeach Trump now and inevitably failing, it only puts the Democrats into a weaker position going into 2020. But by holding off and instead simply blocking his agenda, getting concessions from him, and investigating him, Democrats are far more likely to win in 2020.

but your friend surely must believe there is something to be GAINED from impeaching Trump.

Maybe they believe there is a rate of success however remote...

Maybe they value the damage to Trump's reputation over any particular party winning (i.e., its worth it for the Democrats to lose if only we get to make Trump suffer)

it's not entirely parallel to this is it?

I believe the situations are indeed parallel. There is no chance of Trump being convicted by the Senate right now. Certainly not before the Mueller Report comes out. He would be acquitted by the Senate, and his reputation would not be damaged by a failed impeachment trial; it would instead be bolstered by the exoneration. He can say that Democrats tried to impeach him for "entirely partisan reasons" related to the "russia hoax" and that Democrats failed because he "didn't do anything wrong, the Senate proved it", regardless of whether or not he was only exonerated because Democrats didn't have enough votes. It would end poorly, and odds are, it would lead to Democrats losing the House in 2020 on top of losing the Presidential election. There would be nothing gained by attempting to impeach right now.

The point of both problems is to invoke the greater good theory, but in an interesting variation; do you sacrifice that life without fighting to save it, knowing that such a fight would be a failed one, and believing it is morally imperative to save several others, or do you make the futile attempt to save that life, believing that morally, all lives are valuable and worth trying to save, no matter how futile, even if its at the cost of other lives?

It's the same with impeachment. Do you believe that it's a moral imperative to try, even knowing you'll fail (just to be clear, my friend did express this sentiment, that such an impeachment attempt would almost inevitably fail, but believes it's still a moral imperative, even if it costs Democrats the 2020 elections), or do you believe that the moral imperative is to ensure that Democrats remain in and gain power in DC in order to stop and reverse the atrocities of the Trump Administration in 2020?

As you've set it up and with my divine foresight of the outcomes and probabilities, there is no reason to try and save the next victim. I choose to wait.

No offense, but I didn't edit the premise after the fact...

[Forlania]

Please do not respond with answers that do not address the scenario.

In a discussion with some friends, a hypothetical was posed regarding the ethics of earlier intervention (greater good theory and all that), even when you know early intervention will fail, in a scenario where later intervention is less likely to fail.

Let's say you're a Detective. You're investigating killings. You know exactly when and where the next killing will be, as well as information on future killings. You are the only one who can stop it and the only one who knows of it. You can try to stop it. However, you also know that if you attempt to stop this next killing, you WILL fail, and you will be seriously injured or even killed, thus severely inhibiting or even eliminating your ability to stop the killings, meaning the spree continues on without anyone to stop it. However, if you do not intervene in this one, you will not be injured, and the odds of stopping stopping the killer and future killings is significantly greater as well.

So what do you do? Will you:
-Valiantly attempt to stop the next killing, even knowing that you'll fail and will be highly unlikely to stop future ones?
-Hold off on intervening and instead attempt to stop future ones, with far greater chances of success for the future, despite knowing the next particular target will be killed?

Personally, I would reluctantly attempt to stop the future killings. I believe that in many cases, the greater good theory must be applied. If only I can stop the killings, and I know I'll be unable to stop future killings if I try to stop the next one, and that I will fail at trying to stop the next one, then I must do what's necessary to protect the most people. Simply being valiant for the sake of righteousness when failure is inevitable doesn't help anyone. While some might say that the moral thing to do is to try and protect the next person, even at the cost of your life, even when you know you'll fail, I believe that the moral action is to attempt to protect as many lives as possible, rather than undertake an act which you know will fail and will prevent you from saving others in a doomed attempt to protect one person.

The option to wait & attempt to stop future killings is far and away the better option.
Ultimately the greater good is what must be fought for if we are to consider ourselves moral.

Sacrificing yourself, with the ultimate impact being essentially non-existent (anti-martyrism if you will) is pointless and only serve to give "evils" the upperhand.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

For a klondike bar?


srly now, stop future killings.

I can't save that one person but I can save others.

[Bluelight-R006]

I’d stop future killings. The hypothetical never included the fact that the killer would be more likelier to strike less with the attempt to stop the first killing, meaning that trying to do so would be useless, also proven in real life scenarios.

[The New California Republic]

Since you'd be the first to know that a murder is going to take place, you could be a little turd by waiting near the scene until the murder has been committed, and then wipe forensic evidence from the crime scene, and interfere with the remains by igniting them with petrol. You'd get supervillain status very quickly.

[Xmara]

Wait, so I can see into the future, know when and where the next killing will be, but can’t see who it is?

Also, I take option 3: if I know when and where, I have an idea as to who the intended victim is. So I find a way to keep potential victims from going there, and send the police there to apprehend the killer.