Eliezer—the way question #1 is phrased, it is basically a choice between the following:
Be perceived as a hero, with certainty.
Be perceived as a hero with 90% probability, and continue not to be noticed with 10% probability.
This choice will be easy for most people. The expected 50 extra deaths are a reasonable sacrifice for the certainty of being perceived as a hero.
The way question #2 is phrased, it is similarly a choice between the following:
Be perceived as a villain, with certainty.
Not be noticed with 90% probability, and be perceived as a villain with 10% probability.
Again, the choice is obvious. Choose #2 to avoid being perceived as a villain.
If you argue that the above interpretations are then not altruistic, I think the “Repugnant Conclusion” link shows how futile it is to try to make actual “altruistic decisions”.
Eliezer—the way question #1 is phrased, it is basically a choice between the following:
Be perceived as a hero, with certainty.
Be perceived as a hero with 90% probability, and continue not to be noticed with 10% probability.
This choice will be easy for most people. The expected 50 extra deaths are a reasonable sacrifice for the certainty of being perceived as a hero.
The way question #2 is phrased, it is similarly a choice between the following:
Be perceived as a villain, with certainty.
Not be noticed with 90% probability, and be perceived as a villain with 10% probability.
Again, the choice is obvious. Choose #2 to avoid being perceived as a villain.
If you argue that the above interpretations are then not altruistic, I think the “Repugnant Conclusion” link shows how futile it is to try to make actual “altruistic decisions”.