Philosophy Now Forum

Say there is a contest and many can win. However, I know of one thing that will disequalify many people. However, just by their participation they will unknowingly make the world a better place. Do I reveal the disqualifier and save many people time and effort and inevitable failure or do I betray them by letting them think they can win and allow them to unknowingly and inadvertantly make the world a better place?

What's your position in the contest? Organizer, participant, judge or bystander?

I'm a participant. Should I share the info or not?

Depends on 1. How strong is your desire to win? The more participants, the more ways you have to splint the odds, as well as the prize.
2. How severe are the consequences of participating and then discovering one can't win? Their motives might be affected by that.
and 3. What is the disqualifying factor? If the unwittingly disqualified are blameless, one might be more inclined to inform them; if they've cheated or displaced more deserving people, let 'em do some community service.

Jaded Sage wrote:Say there is a contest and many can win. However, I know of one thing that will disequalify many people. However, just by their participation they will unknowingly make the world a better place. Do I reveal the disqualifier and save many people time and effort and inevitable failure or do I betray them by letting them think they can win and allow them to unknowingly and inadvertantly make the world a better place?

This is probably the most weird and unlikely hypothetical I have ever heard.

Are you talking about telling people that have to be nice to go to heaven?

Skip wrote:Depends on 1. How strong is your desire to win? The more participants, the more ways you have to splint the odds, as well as the prize.
2. How severe are the consequences of participating and then discovering one can't win? Their motives might be affected by that.
and 3. What is the disqualifying factor? If the unwittingly disqualified are blameless, one might be more inclined to inform them; if they've cheated or displaced more deserving people, let 'em do some community service.

1 It isn't diminished by splitting it. 2 seems to be the real issue. For all I know, some make this competition the center of their world. 3 I just realized that those who can't win might diminish the possibility of others joining in the first place.

Now that I see it, the forfitting of the disqualified might lead to the winning of others.

Let's assume the two would balance out in terms of making the world a better place.

What if I am ruining the only thing they have and what if they grow to resent the fact that they are disqualified and make the world a worse place. But at the same time there might be more actual winners. And this prize is good for all, especially the ones who win it.

Do the math as best you can, according to the information available, then decide what outcome is most probable and what outcome you're most comfortable with. If nobody gets hurt by your decision, no problem.

Jaded Sage wrote:Say there is a contest and many can win. However, I know of one thing that will disequalify many people. However, just by their participation they will unknowingly make the world a better place. Do I reveal the disqualifier and save many people time and effort and inevitable failure or do I betray them by letting them think they can win and allow them to unknowingly and inadvertantly make the world a better place?

Positive utilitarianism is shit. No one should be used to benefit the many. Do you enjoy being used by others? I don't. Fuck you. I'll choose negative utilitarianism any day of the week.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:Say there is a contest and many can win. However, I know of one thing that will disequalify many people. However, just by their participation they will unknowingly make the world a better place. Do I reveal the disqualifier and save many people time and effort and inevitable failure or do I betray them by letting them think they can win and allow them to unknowingly and inadvertantly make the world a better place?

Positive utilitarianism is shit. No one should be used to benefit the many. Do you enjoy being used by others? I don't. Fuck you. I'll choose negative utilitarianism any day of the week.

I respect the passion. What if it also gives those people who would be used to benefit the many a sense of purpose and meaning?

Jaded Sage wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote:Say there is a contest and many can win. However, I know of one thing that will disequalify many people. However, just by their participation they will unknowingly make the world a better place. Do I reveal the disqualifier and save many people time and effort and inevitable failure or do I betray them by letting them think they can win and allow them to unknowingly and inadvertantly make the world a better place?

Positive utilitarianism is shit. No one should be used to benefit the many. Do you enjoy being used by others? I don't. Fuck you. I'll choose negative utilitarianism any day of the week.

I respect the passion. What if it also gives those people who would be used to benefit the many a sense of purpose and meaning?

Personal meaning is ephemeral and temporary. I'm not buying it, or changing my response. I will never validate positive utilitarianism, and that's what this ethical question boils down to.

PS. Ignore the impolite sound of my words. It's nothing personal. I've taken to using it when isues of central importance to me are brought up. And your thread is one of them.

I'd say it is unethical to keep people in ignorance of their position even if the world would be a better place as a result. But I don't like the ethics of the set-up. How come you have essential information about the competition requirements that has been denied to other participants? And why are people being asked to compete rather than co-operate?

From a true ethical standpoint you will disqualify them.

From a political standpoint you would look the other way and let them help the cause.

In any case, the ethical position is unclear. We don't know the context, the action required, the prize, the risk, the purpose of the exercise, the terms of entry or qualifications, or the status of participants. In fact, we have insufficient data on which to base a reasoned decision.

If one is passionate about knowing and telling the truth, one can make an emotional decision with very little information.
If one is reticent and doesn't feel impelled to share everything he knows with everyone who might want to know it, or believes that knowledge is power, that person can make a decision based on the paucity of information.
For my part, I couldn't decide until I knew a lot more.

Skip wrote:In any case, the ethical position is unclear. We don't know the context, the action required, the prize, the risk, the purpose of the exercise, the terms of entry or qualifications, or the status of participants. In fact, we have insufficient data on which to base a reasoned decision.

If one is passionate about knowing and telling the truth, one can make an emotional decision with very little information.
If one is reticent and doesn't feel impelled to share everything he knows with everyone who might want to know it, or believes that knowledge is power, that person can make a decision based on the paucity of information.
For my part, I couldn't decide until I knew a lot more.

I only have to see the philosophy behind it to make my decision.

Okay, I can see that. But I don't believe in philosophy.