Would you/we want to know?

[dimreepr]

The scenario: There's an inbound planet-killing comet, one week out:

 

Would you want to know?

 

But in order for you to know, everyone knows.

 

would that change your answer?

[Ophiolite]

My current career is in Knowledge Management. I feel professionally obliged to say "Yes".

[dimreepr]

My current career is in Knowledge Management. I feel professionally obliged to say "Yes".

 

 

I get the obligation, but the caveat kinda makes you redundant...

[StringJunky]

Did the planet-buster slip through the detection systems unnoticed?

Best to be ignorant I think otherwise the last week will be pure anarchy everywhere.

[dimreepr]

very easily...

Did the planet-buster slip through the detection systems unnoticed?

Best to be ignorant I think otherwise the last week will be pure anarchy everywhere.

 

 

But what of the first question?

[StringJunky]

very easily...

 

 

But what of the first question?

I'll choose to be ignorant

[zapatos]

I'd want to know. I'd hate to waste any of my last week putting up with that idiot brother-in-law of mine.

 

And while some would want to know while others would not, I think that withholding the information from those who would want to know is not fair to them.

[dimreepr]

I'd want to know. I'd hate to waste any of my last week putting up with that idiot brother-in-law of mine.

 

And while some would want to know while others would not, I think that withholding the information from those who would want to know is not fair to them.

 

 

At what point on the spectrum does fairness appear?

[DrmDoc]

Of course I would want to know. On that final day I'd pull out my lawn chair, pour myself a nice tall glass of ice tea with a wedge of lemon, put CCR's Bad Moon Rising on repeat, a pair of sunglasses, settle back, and enjoy the show--which I'm sure would be amazing!

[zapatos]

 

 

At what point on the spectrum does fairness appear?

Generally speaking, I think fairness resides with those who want to know. In my mind, it is not fair to withhold reality from those who wish to know it.

 

Telling people who don't want to know should be avoided if possible (although that is not possible in this scenario), but my right to be aware of reality is more important than your right to not be upset by reality.

 

In a similar vein, if a person is dying of cancer, I don't have the right to withhold that information from them just because their family might get upset when they hear about it.

[StringJunky]

Generally speaking, I think fairness resides with those who want to know. In my mind, it is not fair to withhold reality from those who wish to know it.

 

Telling people who don't want to know should be avoided if possible (although that is not possible in this scenario), but my right to be aware of reality is more important than your right to not be upset by reality.

 

In a similar vein, if a person is dying of cancer, I don't have the right to withhold that information from them just because their family might get upset when they hear about it.

The difference is that there will be no consequences to answer to after the event, so, there'll be no resentment.

[EdEarl]

The size of Halley's Comet and the Chicxulub comet were about the same size. Halley's Comet can usually be seen for several weeks during its closest approach to the Sun. Chicxulub wasn't large enough to kill Earth, so this hypothetical comet must be much larger and more visible than Halley's Comet. It would be impossible to keep it a secret.

 

If by planet-killing you mean large enough to kill most of humanity, then another Chicxulub is big enough. However, some people would probably survive in underground shelters. Since people might have a chance to protect themselves underground, I think it would be unethical to try to keep this impact a secret.

 

If you really mean a planet killer, there is no way to keep it a secret; I think everyone could see it even during the day as it approached Earth.

Edited October 4, 2016 by EdEarl

[StringJunky]

The size of Halley's Comet and the Chicxulub comet were about the same size. Halley's Comet can usually be seen for several weeks during its closest approach to the Sun. Chicxulub wasn't large enough to kill Earth, so this hypothetical comet must be much larger and more visible than Halley's Comet. It would be impossible to keep it a secret.

 

If by planet-killing you mean large enough to kill most of humanity, then another Chicxulub is big enough. However, some people would probably survive in underground shelters. Since people might have a chance to protect themselves underground, I think it would be unethical to try to keep this impact a secret.

I don't think you are answering in the spirit of the question. The assumption - by whatever means as a consequence of this comet - is that everything is destroyed. Armageddon.

Edited October 4, 2016 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

The difference is that there will be no consequences to answer to after the event, so, there'll be no resentment.

True, but not having to 'pay the consequences' for my actions won't change what is fair and what is not.

[StringJunky]

True, but not having to 'pay the consequences' for my actions won't change what is fair and what is not.

Pragmatically: if you want to have a hard time with everyone screaming and yelling in your last week then go right ahead; is it worth it? They will have lived every second of their lives to the end instead of stressing all week to no avail. Sometimes, a problem shared is not a problem halved.

Edited October 4, 2016 by StringJunky

[EdEarl]

I don't think you are answering in the spirit of the question. The assumption - by whatever means as a consequence of this comet - is that everything is destroyed. Armageddon.

If the comet couldn't be seen, was dark colored rubble instead of ice, then it would probably be best to not tell people; I'd prefer not to know and hope to die in my sleep.

Edited October 4, 2016 by EdEarl

[StringJunky]

If the comet couldn't be seen, was dark colored rubble instead of ice, then it would probably be best to not tell people; I'd prefer not to know and hope to die in my sleep.

We think alike. You would be helping nobody by telling them.

[zapatos]

Pragmatically: if you want to have a hard time with everyone screaming and yelling in your last week then go right ahead; is it worth it? They will have lived every second of their lives to the end instead of stressing all week to no avail. Sometimes, a problem shared is not a problem halved.

 

"Everyone"? Or will some people spend their time with family and friends instead of re-grouting the tile in the kitchen, or being pissed at their spouse for buying that new table saw without checking first? I don't see how you can decide for others that their last week of life be spent as you think they'd like it, rather than allowing them to decide for themselves.

 

If you have cancer and one week to live, should it be up to the doctor to decide whether or not to tell you? Do you want him deciding for you? Is it okay that instead of spending time with your loved ones, you instead finally got around to cleaning out the garage? Will you make that decision for a close family member?

[StringJunky]

 

"Everyone"? Or will some people spend their time with family and friends instead of re-grouting the tile in the kitchen, or being pissed at their spouse for buying that new table saw without checking first? I don't see how you can decide for others that their last week of life be spent as you think they'd like it, rather than allowing them to decide for themselves.

 

If you have cancer and one week to live, should it be up to the doctor to decide whether or not to tell you? Do you want him deciding for you? Is it okay that instead of spending time with your loved ones, you instead finally got around to cleaning out the garage? Will you make that decision for a close family member?

I'm afraid, yes, I would make that decision; it's not a cop out because I have to bear that cross. I think the world should continue as normal to the end. Like Ed Earl says: he hopes he would be asleep. I don't see why I should share my pain of the knowledge and cause others to endure it. My conscience would be clear.

Edited October 4, 2016 by StringJunky

[EdEarl]

The doctor-cancer scenario is different. The patient made a decision to see the doctor, and wants to be healed. If the doctor cannot heal a person, IMO he is ethically bound to say so. If the person asks how long, the doctor is again ethically bound to tell the patient.

[StringJunky]

The doctor-cancer scenario is different. The patient made a decision to see the doctor, and wants to be healed. If the doctor cannot heal a person, IMO he is ethically bound to say so. If the person asks how long, the doctor is again ethically bound to tell the patient.

True.

[zapatos]

The doctor-cancer scenario is different. The patient made a decision to see the doctor, and wants to be healed. If the doctor cannot heal a person, IMO he is ethically bound to say so. If the person asks how long, the doctor is again ethically bound to tell the patient.

 

So if they didn't tell you they wanted to be healed, or ask how long, then the doctor is no longer ethically bound to tell the patient?

Say for instance the patient went for his annual wellness exam so that he can get cheaper insurance rates through his provider, and the doctor just happens to figure out the patient has one week to live. Since the patient never gave any indication he wanted to be healed, and never asked how long he would live, you feel the doctor is not ethically bound to tell the patient his situation? He can now make the decision that his patient would be better off not knowing?

[EdEarl]

 

So if they didn't tell you they wanted to be healed, or ask how long, then the doctor is no longer ethically bound to tell the patient?

Say for instance the patient went for his annual wellness exam so that he can get cheaper insurance rates through his provider, and the doctor just happens to figure out the patient has one week to live. Since the patient never gave any indication he wanted to be healed, and never asked how long he would live, you feel the doctor is not ethically bound to tell the patient his situation? He can now make the decision that his patient would be better off not knowing?

Regardless of the stated reason for the doctor visit, a doctor is expected to tell a person about an illness. That doctor may not know how to heal the person or keep them alive, but that doesn't mean there is no doctor anywhere who can help.

 

I've heard of cardiac cases whose first doctor told them they would die within months, but another doctor healed the person. No doctor is omniscient, and must consider the possibility that another doctor can help. For a doctor to withhold such information is unethical.

[Sensei]

The scenario: There's an inbound planet-killing comet, one week out:

You should replace "planet-killing comet" by "high gamma ray burst" ionizing entire atmosphere and vaporizing everything.

Then information about future disaster event wouldn't arrive prior these photons.

[StringJunky]

You should replace "planet-killing comet" by "high gamma ray burst" ionizing entire atmosphere and vaporizing everything.

Then information about future disaster event wouldn't arrive prior these photons.

Fried rather than pulverised.