Praxis has operated within your parameters, he is the worlds ruler in your thought experiment. He rules that everyone kill as many people as they can till the one billion is reached. He has made a choice about how they are to be selected. Where has he gone out of bounds? The people are not randomly selected, its everyone. The individuals are making their own choices on who gets killed, although under the pressure of time.
Anyway, I think that your thought experiment has failed. It doesnt show that people have secret prejudice.
As aporiap touched upon, you have designed the scenario so that decisions about who dies are only allowed to be made using prejudice. You take away all other options. This shows nothing except a failure to account for preference and individuals rather than easily identified groups.

I simply meant “decide” as in choose who dies not assign others to make the choice. Of course it’s perfectly natural to sneak in some arbitrary means of making the decision and I don’t honestly think it can be done away with entirely.

I offered some common examples of prejudice but I never said anything about “preferences” not being an option to consider. Someone who seemed so opposed to the idea at least managed to point out the “preference” is a nicer way to view “prejudice” - essentially they are not really all that different though for the purpose of the OP are they? Some judgement of merit will condemn people to death.

Sure, I recognise the similarity of the terms, but they do have a distinction otherwise they would just be one word. However you want to put it, you have left no other option in your scenario, so I think it has failed. Its like saying “choose your favorite color, but you can only choose blue. See? Everybody likes blue the best”.

Then your family wold be murdered, you cool with that? — Anaxagoras

I'd call them first to grab their bug-out bags and head for the family bunker. We knew this would happen eventually.

That’s another dodge. The choice is yours not some group of random people. — I like sushi

Hey, this is America, a democracy. Oh wait, I'm supposed to be the world leader. Well, if I was the world leader it would be a democracy.

The human race will die unless a billion people are killed tomorrow. You are the world leader and have to decide who dies. — I like sushi

Billy, Bob, Sue, Shirley (I never liked her), Johnathan, Wendy, Christopher (he always puts too much sugar in my coffee), Mark, James, Carl, Sandy (she's nice, but she smells like old socks), Tommy, Shaun, Belinda, Georgina (she refused to kiss me in year 7), @Baden, John, Humphrey, William, Graham, Gertrude (horrible name), Little Timmy Cratchit, Frank (always makes an excuse to leave before buying his round), Sally, David, Sheila, Rumpelstiltskin, Robert (never laughs at my jokes), Auntie Pauline, Katina, Dalai Lama, Arthur (he once gave me a funny look), Gregory...

You recuse yourself and the human race ceases to exist. Good job. :wink: — I like sushi

Best criticism I've seen so far.

The scenario doesn’t “fail”. We fail. Then it’s a matter of trying not to fail in too horrific a manner. Maybe you meant something else?

If nothing else it should show that our moral choices act on arbitrary grounds and that when you remove the arbitrary choices there is no “choice” to be made. Whatever choice we make can never be fully justified.

For myself one of the very first things that sprang to mind was to save the youngest (or kill the oldest). Of course this doesn’t mean I think the oldest are of less value and it’s based on nothing more than “potential” life against those who’ve yet to live fuller lives. If I was to be more precise I’d see that it is not actually “age” but “health” I am really judging by here. Once I look further into this any choice seems like a lottery as practically all demographic differences give only the vaguest of judgements as they’re, for the most part, almost completely arbitrary.

Thank you :)

Again this is a poor scenario, apparently your goal is to see the feelings of some who answered, well, congratulations you've accomplished that.

Here is my point......

Mentally I do not think most people are capable of pulling the trigger. When I say most people I'm of course assuming, but in part based on that your average person does not have the capacity to kill which is why I believe each day is not a warzone and that every other person on the street is trying to kill you. With that being said in relation to the OP, I do not think people have the capacity to press a button and just kill off people because they believe they are saving humanity.

The OP leaves off the who, what, when, where and why......

@Bitter Crank called sushi out on these types of scenarios already.

Now I see goal posts are being moved by:

The choice is yours not some group of random people. — I like sushi

Ok so someone with a biased worldview can choose to kill off 1 billion people....

So, I again ask what is the damn point in this scenario? just to see what we will choose? Is it to infer our moral compass?

Edit:

If nothing else it should show that our moral choices act on arbitrary grounds and that when you remove the arbitrary choices there is no “choice” to be made. Whatever choice we make can never be fully justified. — I like sushi

The OP fails because you are making this up as you go instead of making this clear in the beginning. Now we have four pages of back and forth because you decided to change the rules as people make their opinion.

Gotta love BC

You pass three bums begging on the street. One is a shabby but cute white guy; one is a drunk black guy; one is a down and out white hooker. Which one is going to get the extra dollar you have in your pocket? — Bitter Crank

If the hooker is truely down and out a dollar should be enough.

The point of a hypothetical is for people to think about it NOT fro me to tell you how to think. If you wish to establish some fiction as to scenario is as it is do so, but it’s not important.

I didn’t change the rules. I stated parts of the reason for doing this already, one being that once you’ve found yourself at a decision you can live with to move the goal posts then, to push on further and see where your limits are.

You don’t find it interesting that someone said I should focus on “preferences” instead?

I’m going to make a third thread - no need for derogatory/mocking remarks about that guys I understand the tone coming my way well enough ;)

It probably won’t be much use to you if you’ve failed to see the point of any of this. Feel free to take a look though maybe we’ve just got our wires crossed.

The point of a hypothetical is for people to think about it NOT fro me to tell you how to think. If you wish to establish some fiction as to scenario is as it is do so, but it’s not important. — I like sushi

Hmmm so I can make a thread with no point of direction and say "have at it haus?"

I stated parts of the reason for doing this already, one being that once you’ve found yourself at a decision you can live with to move the goal posts then, to push on further and see where your limits are. — I like sushi

My only issue is you didn't say that in the very original post.

I’m going to make a third thread - no need for derogatory/mocking remarks about that guys I understand the tone coming my way well enough — I like sushi

Sushi I have no personal issue with your scenario, I'm quite fond of it, I just don't like answering things without a reason or direction. Kinda like I wouldn't want to be in a perfectly new car with someone who is completely blind driving on the side of a mountain with no guard rails.

based on that your average person does not have the capacity to kill which is why I believe each day is not a warzone and that every other person on the street is trying to kill you. — Anaxagoras

I don’t agree with this. Just like the suggestion that there are people who have no prejudices. That is not to say that people do general act from day-to-day in a brutal manner, just that EVERYONE is capable of murder and hatred if pushed far enough.

I guess you could argue that when we reach such base states we are not “we” anymore. Once we’ve resorted to our more “animalistic” (not the best term but I imagine you understand well enough) drives our authorship, rational action, goes out the window.

Assume I'm a powerful Marvel character......

If I gave you a gun and told you I will kill you if you don't shoot that 1 month old baby in the head would you do it?

My only issue is you didn't say that in the very original post. — Anaxagoras

I make no apologies for this. I was actually expecting people, between the odd protest, to answer it in part or come at the problem in as level a headed manner as possible (trust me it’s not the first time I’ve posted this scenario online).

The initial reaction of most people in these situations (myself included until I started to think about hypotheticals differently) it to ask for more details and qualifiers. We tend not to want to jump to conclusions about the question, yet the hypothetical is of use in exploring this urge to do so.

You’ve mentioned you’re a trained in psychology so maybe it would help to view this in a Jungian manner where you approach your “shadow” ... I say “maybe”, but really that is probably what I personally find most beneficial.

Sushi I have no personal issue with your scenario, I'm quite fond of it, I just don't like answering things without a reason or direction.

Nobody does really. Once when I posted this somewhere some people reacted as if I was playing judge and juror. Even when I told them I wasn’t insisting on an answer (they never gave one) they couldn’t let the idea go.

If I gave you a gun and told you I will kill you if you don't shoot that 1 month old baby in the head would you do it? — Anaxagoras

And what is the point of this question? If you’d posted this what would the reaction have been? Disgust? Revulsion? No doubt you’d have been mocked and attacked to various degrees too.

You can guess what my answer would be and most other people’s answers too. That is besides the point for the purpose of the hypothetical as far as I am concerned and I’ll go into detail about this in another thread where I’ll provide links to the two scenarios I’ve posted.

Saying something and acting it out are not the same though as we all should have learnt in life by now.

Not the scenario, the thought experiment. You seem to be backing off from the purpose of it being to effect self awareness of prejudice, and making the much weaker offering that the purpose is to make people think. Thats fine, its a thought experiment after all. Ultimately though, if its about prejudice I maintain it fails.

If I gave you a gun and told you I will kill you if you don't shoot that 1 month old baby in the head would you do it? — Anaxagoras

How are you able to offer this simplistic gem, but you go full retard about a more difficult moral equation?
...
Nevermind, I answered my own question in the asking. On to your own thought experiment...

I would tell you to go fuck yourself and await the mighty Marvel deathblast coming my way.

You’ll have to explain further? I didn’t back off from the purpose at all. By revealing the layers of reasoning and personally limiting your answer as you spiral down you’ll be faced with your prejudices, and or in the intial question a certain psychological fixatedness seen in how you dirst attend to the question (although this is seen after the matter of fact obviously!)

As for my example first thought. Age spring to mind, yet if I was to consider my age as factoring into this decision I may think differently. If I was very old I may choose this option simply because I wouldn’t have to live with the decision - the avoidance of personal pain is something I would have to take into account (Would it be taking the easier option for me and is this appropriate given that many others are lumped into my age bracket). Anyway, there is plenty to look at there! Someone may view 50% oldest and 50% of youngest as a better option - I wouldn’t, yet I can imagine how such a position could be argued for because I’ve made the difficult effort to think about that in the past.

Next I remove that option and go further, and further until the application of rational thought is incredibly sparse. For example someone asked above about giving a dollar to person A, B or C, yet most of the information as trivial and what I read was “scuffy,” “alcoholic,” and “prostitute”. The matter of “race” and “sex” I am generally indifferent toward. Yet if the question was based purely on race and nothing more I feel an inner confusion, much like if someone was to ask me if I prefer to look up or down. I instantly apply abstract ideas to this where “up” seems more “positive” to my mind so I’d go for that, or my mood may influence my decision and then it becomes a question of what I would consider the “best” mood to be in to make such choices. Other things are more socially ingrained such as “women and children first,” which is generally something I agree with especially the “children” part as they are more naive about life and survival.

Maybe it fails for you, maybe a different hypothetical would suit you better? I’m not saying it is the best hypothetical ever because it is tailored more toward approaching humanity en masse rather than as individual beings (which is an issue in and of itself in how one approaches the problem posed).

I understand how it works. My issue is that you leave prejudice as the only remaining option once you remove all the other answers a person has for who or how they will choose. This doesnt say anything meaningful about facing ones own prejudices, as you have left no other option. Thats as simple as I care to put it, no sense in just repeating myself.
Anyway, an interesting idea. Thanks.

How are you able to offer this simplistic gem, but you go full retard about a more difficult moral equation? — DingoJones

So we are using derogatory phrases now? I mean, judging by the sequences of your responses I wouldn't make references about anyone's intellectual capacity.

would tell you to go fuck yourself — DingoJones

Gotcha

Yeah gonna give up discussing this, I'll follow Bitter Crank's lead

I dont see my response as any more insulting than the implication I am some sort of sociopath because I offered an answer to the thought experiment.

I'm not diagnosing you, you inferring that but carry on with this ridiculous discussion.

would tell you to go fuck yourself
— DingoJones

Gotcha — Anaxagoras

Holy shit, in your little scenario! I would tell you to go fuck yourself if you were a powerful marvel villain who told me to kill a baby or die! Holy christ, how did you not understand that!?
I was answering your thought experiment, or dilema or whatever it was supposed to be.
:lol: :lol:

Ok, ok. Ill take the swearing out cuz apparently it causes your brain to collapse.
Here we go:

If you were a super powered marvel villain, and you demanded i kill a 10 month old baby or you would kill me, I would say
“No, I am not going to kill that baby, you will just have to kill me”
Then assuming you, the fake pretend you that is a marvel super villain, follow through with your threat then I would be killed.

Clear?

You're pretty immature aren't you? I pray to God you're 19 or something.

Lol, oh ok. I get it. Nicely done troll. I ignored you at first but you got me in the end. Kudos, honestly. You got me good there. I was like
“How is this person able to string together complete sentences with such low comprehension levels?!”
Still having a good chuckle over it. How did I fall for that? Im usually so cautious about that kind of thing.