Moral mathematics

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. No. There is no information to chose between those lives, so they MUST all get equal value

Since they must be assigned arbitrarily equal value, save the five and not the one.

Your quibble about "not so clear" is a big point of the full article and you'd do well to read it. The only way it becomes "not so clear" if there is more info about the scenario than set out in the paragraph. But there isn't, so they are assigned equal value. The scenario is applicable for example if someone arrives on the scene simply noting one person and five people and must make an instant decision. There is not time to inquire as to whether the fourth person in the group of five is a mass murderer or a school teacher.

The article has much discussion about the limitations, which are fundamentally limitations of prediction (from lack of probability information).

You are getting into issues of "utility" and "expected value", which is the meat of the article.



If we know nothing about the five people then we MUST assign them all equal value. But if we know something, then we can invoke expected value and utility, more or less to the degree that the information is reliable and complete. Read the article.

If the one is an accomplished brain surgeon entering prime of life and the 5 are retired ditch diggers, then there is a lot more information and that might make us wish to save the one because the utility to society will be higher.