Hypotheticals
I love hypotheticals. I think they’re an integral part of the life of the mind- from learning to reason practically, to learning to separate concepts. Here are some hypotheticals that have buzzed through my mind over the years.
Superpowers
You can read the minds of people around you- in fact you find it difficult to stop. Only with uncomfortable effort you can prevent yourself from reading minds. Do you have a moral obligation to constantly make that effort? Assume that simply disclosing your powers to everyone you meet is not an option, because you’re worried you’ll be experimented on by the government if they find out.
You always know the exact words to say to get what you want from someone. If there are any words that would persuade a person to do x- where x is what you want them to do, you instantly know those words and how to say them. What are your obligations in using this power?
God assures you that your big fears will never come to pass. You will die long in the future peacefully, with nothing horrific happening to you in the interim. How does this change how you live your life?
Similar to the above. God tells you that you’re going to have a great life in every respect but one- you’re never going to have a long term romantic partner, no matter how hard you try. How does this make you feel?
Once only, you can send a 50 word manifesto to everyone on planet earth. Everyone will immediately hear it read in their mind, when doing so would be safe (e.g. not while they’re doing something dangerous). They will understand it, even if they don’t speak your language. What do you say? If you refuse to send one, why?
Personal choices
Applicable only to heterosexuals and homosexuals. You can never have sex or romantic intimacy with your preferred gender ever again. Do you pursue your non-preferred gender, or accept a life of abstinence?
Would you rather have almost no self-awareness or too much self-awareness?
You are given two options by the fates. 1. You can spend the rest of your life with an amazing person, in a relationship filled with great romantic intimacy. Also you’ll be having sex with very attractive people. However, the people you’re having sex with won’t be your romantic partner- that relationship will be sexless. If you want to have kids with your romantic partner it will have to be via artificial insemination 2. You can be in a relationship, with both sex and intimacy, with a somewhat less amazing but still lovely person. Which do you pick? Do you sever sex and intimacy, or keep them together at a loss to the quality of both?
Think of three very different things you’d be willing to sacrifice your life for.
Do you believe that relatively small changes in your life or upbringing could have made you do terrible things?
What’s the smallest thing you’d give up your right to vote for? If you refuse to vote, what’s the smallest thing that could make you vote? If you can’t vote (e.g. resident alien, felon etc.) what’s the most you’d give to be able to vote?
Someone offers you the following deal. You’ll die, but a book containing your basic view of the world, most important thoughts etc. will be published, and read by half a billion people. Would you take it?
From a purely selfish perspective, not considering any larger impacts on the world, which Nobel prize would you most like to win? Options: Physics, Chemistry, Medicine & Physiology, Literature, Peace and Economics.
Ethical odds and ends
You can save one kind of charismatic megafauna (maybe Pandas, maybe blue whales) or thirty invertebrate species that, while they’re not much to look at, biologists tell you are absolutely fascinating from a scientific point of view. Assume no flow on effects like ecosystem destruction or cascading extinctions. Assume also that there will be no lost scientific discoveries that will save or improve human lives. It’s purely about the level of scientific interest and the value of species richness, versus human interest in megafauna. Which do you pick?
In the future it’s possible to assembly sex-androids that look and act almost exactly like the real thing. Even assuming you keep it absolutely secret, would it nonetheless still be unethical to construct a sex-android in the likeness of someone without seeking their permission?
You can live a quiet, mediocre life with almost no impact on anyone else, good or bad, or you can live a wonderful life in Nozick’s experience machine. Which do you pick? Be honest.
You’re dead. Gazing from the afterlife you see that your sister/brother is marrying your widow/widower. How do you feel about this?
You have to ban one and only one forever- either porn or trashy romance/erotica.
Religion
If you are not religious, is there any conceivable event which would make you a believer? If you are religious, is there any conceivable event that would make a non-believer?
You find out the following things to be certainly true: 1. There is an all powerful, all loving God (assume some satisfactory solution to the problem of evil) 2. History is the unfolding of a plan by this benevolent God. Think through, in detail how this makes you feel. If you already believe the above to be true, what about the opposite? You find out there is definitely no all loving all powerful God who acts providentially in history. How do you feel?
Truth
A working, relatively cheap, lie detector is developed, how does it change society?
How does this lie detector change humanity’s view of humanity?
You develop the following power- so long as you are being honest, people cannot doubt that you are being honest, although they might think you are mistaken. Everyone knows you are being honest, and everyone knows that everyone knows you are being honest. What do you do with this power?
You can press a button. If you press this button, the moral character of every single person on earth (defined as altruism divided by selfishness) will be instantly visible to anyone who looks at them. Do you press it?
You can press a button. If you press it, everyone who is in the bottom ten percent of the population for (altruism/selfishness) is revealed as such. Everyone will know them just by looking at them. Do you press it?
Punishment
Everyone who ever lived has been digitally reconstructed using technology. You’re somehow in charge of the project and have great discretionary power in relation to it. A group of people, calling themselves the wronged, demand that people who did wrong in life should be punished in some way. The injustice of seeing those who hurt them living comfortable afterlives stings them. They differ among themselves on who should be punished. Some want only the worst of the worst to be punished, others want all murderers, torturers, rapists etc. to be punished, and some want to go even further. Adding to the confusion is the vastness of cultural space represented by all 120 billion humans who ever lived. What do you do, and how do you justify it? Having the totality of people make a democratic decision about it among themselves is an option, but if you pick this you need to justify it, and think through the procedure by which the decision would be made.
Let's say that there were a condition, call it demonic possession, that could make people do awful things. Let's say, further, that science has demonstrated that this condition exists, is common, and is in no way the fault of the sufferer. Also it's a transient condition- you can have it then get better, or you can have repeated relapses- but just because someone has had it in the past doesn't mean they have it now. Now the sufferer knows they are not themselves when they have it, but there's no way for them to prove this to anyone else. Thus anyone can do something wrong and then say "actually I was demonically possessed". It becomes routine for criminals of all sorts to claim this. How do you think the existence of this condition, and society's knowledge about it, would change criminal justice, punishment etc.?
Most importantly though, how do you think the above situation re: demonic possession would change how people feel about criminals? Let’s say Rob has done something truly dreadful- worst of the worst serial killers material. He claims demonic possession. Do people still feel the cold, visceral fury they normally feel towards serial killers towards Rob? Or are there emotions more confused?
Life and death
You’re tied to a train track. A man is hurtling towards you on a very heavy moving cart. If he hits you, you will die. He is completely blameless in this situation. You can press a button and the cart will be diverted into a ravine, killing him but sparing you. Do you have the right to press the button?
You’re locked in a room with a man and a brick. The man has been thoroughly anesthetized. His heartbeat is wired up to a mini bomb in your cortex, if he is still alive in half an hour, you will certainly die, however the blast -being very small- won’t affect him and he will survive. He is completely blameless in this situation. Do you have a right to kill this man?
You are in a room where there is only enough oxygen for one person to survive until the door will be unlocked in 2 hours. Once again there’s an anesthetized man and a brick. Do you have a right to kill this man to survive? If you kill him, you will survive. If you don’t kill him, he will survive but you won’t (assume he’s better at lasting without oxygen than you, and when he’s on the verge of death and you’re already dead he’ll be whisked out of the room with no permanent damage).
You are in a room as above, but now the problem is that there is no food. There is once again an anesthetized man (assume he’s knocked out for a month- somehow). Also he, unlike you, won’t need food because he’s hooked up to a special IV drip (Assume you can’t take the drip for yourself because you’re allergic to the formula in it). Do you have the right to kill and eat him? Assume that if you do you will definitely have enough food to survive.
If you gave different answers to the above questions, how would you draw the line between them?