The Poison-Cactus-Vampire-Ward Problem, an ethics and “fairness” thought experiment I wrote for you in which your moral intuitions are represented as a number between 0 and 100:
Suppose there are two villages, “Parvitas” and “Amplus,” which are a 5-minute walk apart. Once per month, when the full moon is out, all men, women, children, and wizards of the two villages must meet to conduct the vampire ward ritual. The ritual requires all people from BOTH villages to be chanting at the same time in the same place in one of the two villages. Hence, the people from Parvitas must all go to Amplus, or the people of Amplus must all go to Parvitas. If the vampire ward ritual is not conducted, then everyone is subsequently eaten by vampires.
Unfortunately, despite the very short distance between the villages, a painful prickly poisonous cactus patch lies on the only passable path between them. Any person who passes through the cactus patch gets poisoned, which is not serious but feels terrible.
The poisoned feeling is terrible to all people, regardless of how many times they’ve experienced it before, but due to genetic differences, the reaction that the people of Parvitas have is three times more terrible from the poison than the people of Amplus.
There are 100 people in Parvitas and 200 people in Amplus.
Now the question for you is: from an ethical perspective, what percentage of months should the people of Parvitas have to be the ones crossing the cactus patch to get to Amplus (rather than the people of Amplus crossing the cactus patch to get to Parvitas)?
Once you give your percentage in the comments or give up on trying to answer, scroll down to see explanations for different possible percentages you could give!
Scroll down only after you’ve given your answer.
[Pedantic rules: the cactus patch is impossible to clear away given the current state of Parvitas/Amplus technology. The population sizes of the two villages stay constant. Monthly meetings cannot take place anywhere besides one of those two villages. The villages cannot be moved. Assume the people of both villages are equally morally deserving and equally wealthy per capita. No armor or bridges, or antidotes are allowed.]
Possible answers to “What percentage of months should the people of Parvitas have to be the ones crossing the cactus patch to get to Amplus?”
Utilitarian sum solution: 0% – minimize total suffering (the people of Parvitas each suffer three times more from the poison than the people of Amplus, so even though there are 1/2 as many of them, 3*(1/2)=1.5x more total suffering occurs each time they cross the cactus patch than if the Amplus people do, so the Parvitas people should never cross, hence 0%)
Capitalist trade negotiation solution: 0% – suppose that on average, the unpleasantness of the cactus patch for a person from Amplus is worth 1 unit of the Amplus/Parvitas currency (so that a person from Amplus would be indifferent between crossing the patch and receiving 1 unit), and by extension, that crossing the cactus patch is worth three units of currency to a person of Parvitas since people of Parvitas suffer three times as much. Then the villagers of Parvitas could (for example) each pay slightly more than two units to the villagers of Amplus in order for Amplus to have to do the walking every time, and it will be worth it for both sides to agree. However, a different bargain could also be struck (depending on the negotiating skills on each side and the impression that each side has of what will happen in the event of no agreement being struck).
Equal individual suffering solution: 25% – each person shares an identical amount of the burden by suffering an equal amount as every other person (if the Parvitas have to cross the patch 25% of the time, then out of every four months, each member of the Parvitas experiences total suffering from 0.25 ( 3 units of suffering, 4 months of each year = 3 versus 0.75 * 4 months * 1 unit of suffering = 3 for the Amplus people, so each person suffers equally regardless of which group they are in)
Equal total group burden solution: 40% – rather than each person sharing the same amount of the burden of suffering, we could have the two GROUPS each have the same total amount of suffering. If Parvitas crosses 40% of the time, then that group’s total suffering per meeting is 0.40 x 100 x 3 = 120, compared to Amplus, which then has total suffering per meeting of 0.60 x 200 x 1 = 120. With this solution, the total sum of suffering experienced by each group is the same as what the other group experiences.
Group fairness solution: 50% – each group gets the same treatment as each other group, so each group walks half the time regardless of the number of people per group or amount of suffering per person (or a coin is flipped to see which group walks each time)
Individual equal action solution: 50% – each person has to walk as often as each other person (regardless of how much they suffer); hence each group walks half the time
Equal chance of choosing a solution: 66.66% – pick a person at random by having everyone draw sticks each time, and let the winning person choose which group walks that time (so each person, assuming they are acting selfishly, will choose to have the other group walk when they are chosen, but 66.66% of the people live in Amplus, so the Parvitas walk 66.66% of the time)
Democratic majority vote solution: 100% – each person gets a vote, and the larger village wins the vote every time due to having the majority; hence the smaller village walks every time.
Comments