The Cactus Crossing Conundrum is 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, “Smallville” and “Largeford,” which are a 5-minute walk apart. There are 100 people in Smallville and 200 people in Largeford – so Largeford has twice as many people in it.
According to their ancient traditions, ALL of the people in the two villages must meet once per month in one of the two villages to carry out a ritual. The ritual requires all people from BOTH villages be in one of the two villages at the same time. Hence, the people from Smallville must all go to Largeford, or the people of Largeford must all go to Smallville. For the sake of this thought experiment, we’ll assume that the ritual must be conducted, or else the world will end.
Unfortunately, despite the short distance between the villages, a painful, poisonous cactus patch lies on the only passable path between them. Any person who passes through the cactus patch gets poisoned, which is not dangerous but causes a lot of pain.
The feeling of being poisoned by these cactuses is awful, regardless of how many times they’ve experienced it before, but due to genetic differences, the people of Smallville experience 3 times more pain from the poison than the people of Largeford.
Now here’s the tricky question for you. Each month, either all the people of Smallville, who are three times more sensitive to the poison, have to cross the cactus patch to go to Largeford, or the people of Largeford, consisting of twice as many people, have to cross the cactus patch to go to Smallville. But it doesn’t have to be the same group crossing each time.
So, from an ethical perspective, what percentage of months should the people of Smallville have to be the ones crossing the cactus patch to get to Largeford (rather than the people of Largeford crossing the cactus patch to get to Smallville)?
Assume that one or the other group really does have to cross each month, the population sizes don’t change, and there is no way to clear away the cactuses or avoid the poison.
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 Smallville/Largeford 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 Smallville have to be the ones crossing the cactus patch to get to Largeford?”
Utilitarian sum solution: 0% – minimize total suffering (the people of Smallville each suffer three times more from the poison than the people of Largeford, 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 Largeford people do, so the Smallville 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 Largeford is worth 1 unit of the Largeford/Smallville currency (so that a person from Largeford 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 Smallville since people of Smallville suffer three times as much. Then the villagers of Smallville could (for example) each pay slightly more than two units to the villagers of Largeford in order for Largeford 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 Smallville have to cross the patch 25% of the time, then out of every four months, each member of the Smallville 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 Largeford 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 Smallville crosses 40% of the time, then that group’s total suffering per meeting is 0.40 x 100 x 3 = 120, compared to Largeford, 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 Largeford, so the Smallville 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.
Note: I originally called this thought experiment the Poison-Cactus-Vampire-Ward Problem but I changed its name to make it simpler
I find it really interesting how the Captialist trade solution and the Utilitarian solution are *identical* except for an extra transfer.
There’s something to that, which is probably just as simple as “economic trade happens on utilitarian grounds”
Greetings Mister!
If we leave them to themselves/alone, that option is left out of the decisions and/or the decision tree.
I’d be interested to see how the math works out.
Capitalist 0% – Democratic 100% ?
It is not “democratic” at all for two-thirds to assert their own interests exclusively, completely ignoring the interests of the remaining one-third. It is what John Stuart Mill called “the tyranny of the majority.”