The Abortion Debate (continued) (2 Viewers)

[_dhj_]

Take those rose red glasses off generator and take a step back. Seriously, i don't believe that one should be burnt alive in a box for any reason, i was simply being an ass. However, if one was to agree that woman should abort an indivdual of the future, then I feel sorry for you due to your ignorance and spitfull ways, also praying to GOD to have mercy on your soul cause he's gona be one pissed off fucker when he finds out you support 'playing GOD' and the termination of a living human.

While the baby is growing within the mother, It does require water and food to survive, it breaths. it kicks -it's alive.

END OF DISCUSSION.

lol... religion.

 

[bshoc]

I know that this may surprise you, but accidents such as that mentioned by minka aren't restricted to those who 'sleep around', bshoc.

Any woman undertaking the said activity should accept the risks before doing it, doesent matter if she sleeps around or just with a bf.

 

[Serius]

I am against the current laws regarding abortions
Abortion to me seems to imply getting rid of the embryo because the mother feels it wont be convenient for her life to have a child. termination for medical reasons will never ever be outlawed and it doent even fall under the same arguement of abortions.

One of my main beefs with the current abortion rates in australia is it seems to be a terribly unnecessary shame. If having a child is not an option then hey, get on the pill. Or better yet, keep your legs shut.
Now some do gooder female rights activist is going to jump down my neck " what about rape?" " what about incest?" "what about medical complications?" "what about an accident such as condom failure?"
Accidents happen, and if an adult is mature enough to have sex, they should be aware of the condequences. Condoms are not 100% effective, if you want to stay pregnancy free, use the pill correctly every time.
The other scenarios are sketchy at best. How many of the total abortions that occur is Australia do you think are for these reasons? 1 in 10? If people were more responsible we could reduce the abortion rate by a rediculous amount, all arguements aside, we all realise that most abortions happen by women who think it would be inconvenient to their life to have another child.

Like i said previously, i am against the current abortion laws, but i would lable myself as pro choice. To me abortions are in some cases a necessary evil, but i would like to reduce them to when they are really really needed so that the new majority are those we need it and the very small minority are because sally got knocked up and now wants to finish school instead of being a mother.

Abortion implys choice. My problem with the current laws of abortion is it does not imply choice for the father aswell.

Fathers rights in western countrys are pathetic, and i would like to see them changed.

I am pretty sure i have stated my position previously, but basically i beleive that if two adults have consensual sex, and that consent is in effect a statement of responsability to any children conceived, accidental or otherwise, then the father should have some rights aswell. Currently if the mother chooses to cary to term, then the father has to pay child support because of his consent 9 months earlier. If the mother chooses to have an abortion, he has no legal say in it. This is not right.
"But what about rape, Serius? how can you suggest a rapist would have rights such as these?" an act commited in crime means the father basically voids his right to the child.

"Ok the the father and mother get an equal decission on wether the child is aborted or not right? so what if they dissagree?"

If the father votes abortion, that could be considered an "out" in terms of responsability and rights. He does not have to pay child support if the mother chooses to carry to term, but neither does he get visitation rights, custody rights, rights to any information or a say in how the child is raised. If the child happens to die before old age, he also has no grounds to contest the will

If the mother wants an abortion, she will have to carry the baby to term. If the father wants the baby and has enough money and a suitable home to support one, there is no reason to throw a life away. The mother can ofcourse be compensated for 6months of inconvenience and loss of work, but ultimately she consented to sex, so she has a responsability to give birth to the child, just as currently the male consented and has a responsability to child support wether he wanted the baby or not.

any questions

 

[_dhj_]

Well, i was readin this thread and the only solid argument that one was to present someway involved GOD and CHRIST or Allah or what ever it's name is. So, I was to bring GOD into the argument.

As soon as one brings GOD into it, you have nothing to argue.

-Let's admit, if GOD is real, he's going to be fairly pissed off, especially regarding issues such as abortion.

Then agaiin, I couldn't give a fuck at the moment but i'll be sure to say sorry when I meet him -if ever.

If an almighty god existed, why would he even allow the thought of abortion to exist, if he so strongly disapproves of it?

That is for the other thread anyway.

 

[bshoc]

You must forgive me as I fear your just trying to side-step the fact that you were repeatedly wrong with your dismissal of utilitarianism. Its' not archaic, discarded or outdated - could you please explain to me how you come to your decisions of what is right/wrong?

If you want to debate it, then debate it. Don't just throw up some theory which you know your opponent probably has not had any contact with then say 'disprove it or your idea is wrong' without properly looking into your claim, arrows' theorem in NO WAY affects utilitarianism and IMO it was a cheap tactic to skew the debate.

You have already been given the relevants proofs and information, I dont want to debate it becuase it is a non-argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_Impossibility_Theorem

The need to aggregate preferences occurs in many different disciplines: in welfare economics, where one attempts to find an economic outcome which would be acceptable and stable; in decision making, where a person has to make a rational choice based on several criteria; and most naturally in voting systems, which are mechanisms for extracting a decision from a multitude of voters' preferences.
The framework for Arrow's theorem assumes that we need to extract a preference order on a given set of options (outcomes). Each individual in the society (or equivalently, each decision criterion) gives a particular order of preferences on the set of outcomes. We are searching for a preferential voting system, called a social welfare function, which transforms the set of preferences into a single global societal preference order. The theorem considers the following properties, assumed to be reasonable requirements of a fair voting method:

• unrestricted domain or universality: the social welfare function should create a deterministic, complete societal preference order from every possible set of individual preference orders. In other words: the vote must have a result that ranks all possible choices relative to one another, the voting mechanism must be able to process all possible sets of voter preferences, and it should consistently give the same result for the same profile of votes—no randomness is allowed in the process.
• non-imposition or citizen sovereignty: every possible societal preference order should be achievable by some set of individual preference orders. This means that the social welfare function is onto: It has an unrestricted target space.
• non-dictatorship: the social welfare function should not simply follow the preference order of a special individual while ignoring all others. This means that the social welfare function is sensitive to more than the wishes of a single voter.
• positive association of social and individual values or monotonicity: if an individual modifies his or her preference order by promoting a certain option, then the societal preference order should respond only by promoting that same option or not changing, never by placing it lower than before. An individual should not be able to hurt an option by ranking it higher.
• independence of irrelevant alternatives: if we restrict attention to a subset of options and apply the social welfare function only to those, then the result should be compatible with the outcome for the whole set of options. Changes in individuals' rankings of irrelevant alternatives (ones outside the subset) should have no impact on the societal ranking of the relevant subset. This is a restriction on the sensitivity of the social welfare function.

Arrow's theorem says that if the decision-making body has at least two members and at least three options to decide among, then it is impossible to design a social welfare function that satisfies all these conditions at once.
Another version of Arrow's theorem can be obtained by replacing the monotonicity and non-imposition criteria with that of:

• unanimity or Pareto efficiency: if every individual prefers a certain option to another, then so must the resulting societal preference order. This, again, is a demand that the social welfare function will be minimally sensitive to the preference profile.

This version of the theorem is stronger—has weaker conditions—since monotonicity, non-imposition, and independence of irrelevant alternatives together imply Pareto efficiency, whereas Pareto efficiency, non-imposition, and independence of irrelevant alternatives together do not imply monotonicity.

et A be a set of outcomes, N a number of voters or decision criteria. We shall denote the set of all full linear orderings of A by L(A) (this set is equivalent to the set S | A | of permutations on the elements of A). A social welfare function is a function

which aggregates voters' preferences into a single preference order on A. The n-tuple

of voter's preferences is called a preference profile.
In its strongest and most simple form, Arrow's impossibility theorem states that whenever the set A of possible alternatives has more than 2 elements, then the following three conditions become incompatible:
unanimity, or Pareto efficiencyIf alternative a is ranked above b for all orderings

, then a is ranked higher than b by

. (Note that unanimity implies non-imposition). non-dictatorshipThere is no individual i whose preferences always prevail. That is, there is no

such that

,

. independence of irrelevant alternativesFor two preference profiles

and

such that for all individuals i, alternatives a and b have the same order in Ri as in Si, alternatives a and b have the same order in

as in

.
Arrow's theorem is a mathematical result, but it is often expressed in a non-mathematical way, with a statement such as "No voting method is fair", "Every ranked voting method is flawed", or "The only voting method that isn't flawed is a dictatorship". These statements are simplifications of Arrow's result which are not universally considered to be true. What Arrow's theorem does state is that a voting mechanism cannot comply with all of the conditions given above simultaneously.
Arrow did use the term "fair" to refer to his criteria. Indeed, the Pareto principle, as well as the demand for non-imposition, seems trivial. As for the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) - suppose Dave, Chris, Bill and Agnes are running for office. And suppose Agnes has a clear advantage. Now according to Arrow's theorem, there could be a situation where if Dave steps out of the race, it will suddenly be Bill, and not Agnes, who would win the race. This would seem "unfair" by many. And yet it can happen, and Arrow's theorem states that these "unfair" situations cannot be avoided in general, without relaxing some other criterion. Something has to give. So the important question to be asked, in light of Arrow's theorem is: which condition should be relaxed?
Various theorists and hobbyists have suggested weakening the IIA criterion as a way out of the paradox. Proponents of ranked voting methods contend that the IIA is an unreasonably strong criterion, which actually does not hold in most real-life situations. Indeed, the IIA criterion is the one breached in most useful voting systems.
Advocates of this position point out that failure of the standard IIAC is trivially implied by the possibility of cyclic preferences. If voters cast ballots as follows...
7 votes for A > B > C
6 votes for B > C > A
5 votes for C > A > B
...then the net preference of the group is A > B > C > A. In this circumstance, any system that picks a unique winner, and satisfies the very basic majoritarian rule that a candidate who receives a majority of all first-choice votes must win the election, will fail IIAC. Without loss of generality, consider that if a system currently picks A, and B drops out of the race, the remaining votes will be:
7 votes for A > C
11 votes for C > A
Thus, C will win, even though the change (B dropping out) concerned an "irrelevant" alternative candidate who did not win in the original circumstance.
Relaxing the IIA criterion, though popular, has a distinct disadvantage: it can result in strategic voting, making the voting mechanism 'manipulable'. That is, any voting mechanism which is not IIA can yield a setup where some of the voters get a better result by mis-reporting their preferences (e.g. I prefer a to b to c, but I claim I prefer b to c to a). Clearly, any non-monotonic social welfare function is manipulable as well. If one uses a manipulable voting scheme in real life, one should expect some "dishonest" voting. What this means is that the real-life implementation of most voting mechanisms results in a complicated game of skill. The Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, an attempt at weakening the conditions of Arrow's paradox, replaces the IIA criterion with a criterion of non-manipulability, only to reveal the same impossibility.
So, what Arrow's theorem really shows is that voting is a non-trivial game, and that game theory should be used to predict the outcome of most voting mechanisms. This could be seen as a discouraging result, because a game need not have efficient equilibria, e.g., a ballot could result in an alternative nobody really wanted in the first place, yet everybody voted for.



Also, if you're after something a little more complex:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/arrowstheorem.pdf

note page 11 especially

 

[SoulSearcher]

Well, what do you want him to do? Drop down with wings on and say "Oh my sheep, what the fuck are you doing to this world?."

It's simple, there has to be something else -what exactly, I am unsure.

Matter, atom structrure, cell structure and so on wasen't simply created from nothing. Scientists trying to discover how life began amazes me... they can't find a certain answer, mhmm i wonder why? Don't you find it quite funny how things work -for example, look at your hands and move your fingers -they have been designed by someone, something, or fucked if I know. Think about it, everything works out without being questioned.

I may seem a litlle off topic, but people can't seriously believe the universe just appeared from nothing? Fuck off, It has been designed by something/someone and we will probably never know.

Again, a debate for the other thread.

 

[bshoc]

Furthermore, women who don't want a child, regardless of the circumstances it was conceived in, will find a way to 'abort' the child, whether it is legal or not. If you outlaw it, an abortion black market will arise and also the incidence of 'self-inflicted abortion' complications will rise.

However abortions themselves will drop significantly, as with any other activity upon which the government decides to impose harsh penalties. It will even be more successful than drug bans etc. since illigalized abortions can be verified at almost any time.

 

[bshoc]

tsup big brother, why don't you microchip the whole female population while your at it, just to make sure you know when women are pregant, so you can punish them suitably if they abort a child.

No need for microchips.

As I said, you can't force a being with free will to nuture an organism they do not want, it just won't work.

You would be surprised how many women would elevate their thinking on this issue if it were illigalized, whats worse, 9 moths with a baby, or 5-life in state/federal prison?

 

[bshoc]

Are you a vegetarian, perchance?

Now now, we wouldn't want to disturb Godwin's law ..

 

[bshoc]

huh?

how does that question lead to any reference to nazis...

I just don't understand the logic that so vehemently condemns abortion but quite happily partakes in a lifestyle that, both directly and indirectly, condemns many living organisms to death.

I am not a vegetarian, fyi.

Well I'm not going to answer that since its irrelevant and your little side argument is self-defeating, needless to say eating meat was one of the things that kept humanity intact to this day, as opposed to aborting ourselves out of existance.

 

[bshoc]

Nah it's not irrelevant, it exposes an inconsistency in your logic.

COS LYKE HUMAN LYFE IS MORE IMPORTANT DAN ANIMAL LYFE, FO'REAL.

Thats the most stupid argument I've heard here yet, and thats saying alot.

 

[Generator]

You're seriously going to try and argue that TAFE is better than uni?!

um, ok...delude yourself...

If you want to argue the point, secret, I suggest that you do so by means of a PM exchange with Brogan.

One of my main beefs with the current abortion rates in australia is it seems to be a terribly unnecessary shame. If having a child is not an option then hey, get on the pill. Or better yet, keep your legs shut.
Now some do gooder female rights activist is going to jump down my neck " what about rape?" " what about incest?" "what about medical complications?" "what about an accident such as condom failure?"
Accidents happen, and if an adult is mature enough to have sex, they should be aware of the condequences. Condoms are not 100% effective, if you want to stay pregnancy free, use the pill correctly every time.

Nobody denies that there are probably too many abortions taking palce in Australia each year (as we all know, the figures aren't clear), but why is that you continue to place the greater share of the blame upon the woman? She should have kept her legs closed, it's her fault if she wasn't on the pill and the condom failed, etc. Tell me, Serius, have you ever looked at this issue in its entirety, or are you merely approaching it from the point of view of a man crying "what about me?"

 

[kami]

Now some do gooder female rights activist is going to jump down my neck " what about rape?" " what about incest?" "what about medical complications?" "what about an accident such as condom failure?"

Now people keep bringing up incest as an 'out' in the no-abortion stance, and I am not exactly sure why that might be. Its listed separately from rape, medical issues and contraceptive failure so what exactly is it about a foetus created of incest that makes it permissible to 'kill it'?

Well I'm not going to answer that since its irrelevant and your little side argument is self-defeating, needless to say eating meat was one of the things that kept humanity intact to this day, as opposed to aborting ourselves out of existance.

Having abortion as an option will hardly drive us to extinction, it is available as an option now yet human society continues to exist.

 

[Serius]

If you want to argue the point, secret, I suggest that you do so by means of a PM exchange with Brogan.



Nobody denies that there are probably too many abortions taking palce in Australia each year (as we all know, the figures aren't clear), but why is that you continue to place the greater share of the blame upon the woman? She should have kept her legs closed, it's her fault if she wasn't on the pill and the condom failed, etc. Tell me, Serius, have you ever looked at this issue in its entirety, or are you merely approaching it from the point of view of a man crying "what about me?"

Its not blame exactly, but consequences most affect the woman. Any guy can shove his peener into any woman and fuck off, she is the one who has to deal with the consequences, so she should take proper precautions. Society judges that the guy has to pay child support aswell, So guys its a very good idea to take take responsability aswell and slip on a condom. You cant really know if she is 'really' taking the pill, or just missing a few because she wants a handout 9months down the track. There isnt all that much a male can do to decrease the chances of pregnancy, and he cant supervise his partner taking the pill [if only there was an equivilant pill for males!] so the best he can do is a condom which isnt effective enough for repeated liasons.

Also, iam crying what about me[shannon knoll ftw!]

The whole idea as incest as an out has some basis as a child conceived from two genetically related individuals has a very high chance of having messed up genes. Religion despises incest, science agrees it isnt a good idea. Psychologists basically say it will mentally fuck up the girl so its a no win situation, especially considering most incest cases were brought about by rape. I would prefer to see an abortion done than to read in the paper about a mother smothering her baby 9 months later.

Why would women want to illegally abort if the father has said he will raise it? their numer one reason, that the baby would impact her life, is now taken away because she wont be raising it. Add to the fact that its illegal and she will be slapped with a big fine and 5 years in prison... and well, a couple of months of discomfort, getting paid to sit around doing nothing by the father, take a holiday- whatever is starting to look pretty good.

 

[kami]

The whole idea as incest as an out has some basis as a child conceived from two genetically related individuals has a very high chance of having messed up genes. Religion despises incest, science agrees it isnt a good idea. Psychologists basically say it will mentally fuck up the girl so its a no win situation, especially considering most incest cases were brought about by rape. I would prefer to see an abortion done than to read in the paper about a mother smothering her baby 9 months later.

Then we should also abort because mothers often suffer post-partum depression and may harm their children. If you are against abortion then it still seems illogical to say someone does not deserve to live because of who their parent was - if there were no messed up genes or rape involved. Also, religion seems to argue more against the act of incest...I don't remember it saying anything about the foetuses derived from it not having the right to 'live'.

Society judges that the guy has to pay child support aswell, So guys its a very good idea to take take responsability aswell and slip on a condom. You cant really know if she is 'really' taking the pill, or just missing a few because she wants a handout 9months down the track.

Um, look at the pros and cons of the situation...

Cons - (during pregnancy) constant peeing, the sicking up, back ache, diet restrictions, swollen ankles and (depending on big she gets)inability to drive safely, maternity leave which only covers a portion of the time she is pregnant, (after birth) possible postpartum depression, scars from caesarians, restricted social life, income problems because you can't work full time as a single parent, the responsibility of constantly supervising another human being etc.
Pros - single pay out from the government, a centrelink supplement, and some money from the father.

I'd be questioning why any woman would be 'missing a few because she wants a handout down the track'. Pregnacies/parenthood isn't always as severe as I've outlined but still...

 

[gerhard]

there are quite a lot of hostile views of the opposite sex in this thread.

 

[The Brucemaster]

I know this was a little while ago but it seems to be the only decent discussion happening at the moment.

It seems pointless to look at one definition of the word muder and claim it to be absolute truth. The english language changes as people use it in different ways. So while that defination may be true it can be also used the way meaning:

To kill brutally or inhumanly.

It would seem to me also that the issue of definition is not what this arguement is about, and certainly does not give a moral indication in regards to what people should do.

Ok, yeah, the English language is adaptable but seeing as this is a debate about legislation we have to have a definition that defines both murder and life. That definition does not necessarily give moral guidance, yes but that's the whole point of the pro-choice argument (for some any way), there is no reasonable, generally accepted definition to go on thus the only persons who can be responsible for the decision are the mother and father.

I don't feel that you have given strong evidence of this, and whilst I may be inclined to agree with you, I cannot justify doing so until you show me real evidence of how three of the seven indications of life are not happening from the moment of conception. From the first of these, my question still stands as to how the featus can have any change if it has no ability to metabolise before it attaches to the uterus wall.

Ok after viewing this site I'll retract the fact that the foetus does not grow (it undergoes cellular division which is technically considered growth). Although at this stage I would argue it still does not have human form in any way and thus cannot be considered alive.
In regards to metabolism it cannot undergo metabolism because there is no input of energy prior to its attachment to the uterus.
Also, as per the above site, the time from conception to attachment in the uterus is 4 days not 7-10 as was previously stated.

We've been through this already. If you want to say that there is no moral objection to killing a featus since it is of equal nature to an animal (which I don't really agree with) then you must first justify how you believe you are morally fine in taking life from animals.

Well, again, it comes back to legislation. If we are to legislate that abortion of a foetus at this stage is illegal then, for matters of consistency it must be considered that the killing of animals is equally illegal as there is absolutely nothing to distinguish the two at this point.

The pain argument also seem to be a bit odd to me.

Firstly in regard to the arguement above, if you cannot draw sufficient reasoning to show why we are morally fine in killing animals, then we must realise that they can also feel pain yet we don't have a problem killing them (why change this for abortion?)

The second point is that this argument would suggest that as long as someone is not able to feel pain, we are fine to kill them.

You also mentioned that the baby is near to full development. Fully developed in regards to what? Other babies that are born? Surely most posters here are still growing and developing?

First, in regards to pain, it comes back to a legislative issue. For reasons mentioned above, if the Government were to legislate that abortion was illegal at any earlier point in the foetuses development it would be inconsistent or unjustified.

Second, that's not what I'm suggesting at all.

As to the baby's development I mean in regards to its development as a baby (based on the standard 9 months, refer to above site).



As well as that I have a couple of other comments.

First, to Secret, if you can prove to me God exists I might accept that we are 'paying God'. Until such time, don't give me such rubbish arguments.


To Serius, kami has already pointed this out but do you really think that women get pregant just so they can get a few thousand dollars from the government? I'd hate to be your future wife....


To bshoc, you really are an idiot

First, as Brogan said what the fuck does Godwin's Law have to do with anything on this thread?
Second, all you have done this entire thread to support your case is give us some crap about Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which seems to have little relevance to abortion and its ethical ramifications.
Finally, I said it earlier and I'll say it again:

LEARN TO FUCKING SPELL!!!!!!!!!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

there are quite a lot of hostile views of the opposite sex in this thread.

I agree.

Second, all you have done this entire thread to support your case is give us some crap about Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which seems to have little relevance to abortion and its ethical ramifications.

He did that to challenge my utilitarian perspective on abortion, even tho it cannot even be appied to utilitarianism. IMHO I think it was a cheap ploy to shut me up by introducing something I didn't understand and that it would take me some time to think about.... because now that I do understand it, I have absolutely no idea how he can apply the theorem to utilitarianism.


As an aside I've now been told that my ethics in reguard to abortion are more objectivist than strictly utilitarian by people alot better schooled in philosophy than me.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You have already been given the relevants proofs and information, I dont want to debate it becuase it is a non-argument.

No, you're just wrong and too stuborn/stupid to listen to what I'm explaining.

Utilitarianism is a philosophical framework, an expression of adherence to a particular principle, if you will. The principle, of course, is that an action is moral to the extent it increases the total happiness in the group of interest.

Arrow's theorem says nothing about this. (In particular, Arrow's theorem doesn't even apply to the abortion question, since it only applies to the decision-making process, only applies when there are three or more alternative choices available. A simple yes/no question does not create Arrow paradoxes.)

I would also argue that utilitarianism specifically precludes Arrow paradoxes precisely because "the total happiness," if expressed numerically, creates an objective total order among all choices. Therefore, no Arrow paradox can arise.

Then later....


And I submit that it isn't, because it doesn't involve group decisions. Happiness is a personal decision, not a group one.

To do a happiness enquiry, the relevant question is not "will choice A improve your sex life?" or a similar fractionisation of happiness. The relevant question is "how happy will you be under choice A?"

The relevant person to make that decision is, of course, the person whose happiness is in question.

To do otherwise is to assert that you know better than the other person what will and will not maker her happy, which is of course ludicrous.

Now, practical requirements may force you to forego polling everyone in society. You may need to guess what will make people happy and unhappy. But that's not an Arrow paradox. The Arrow paradox is that, in an environment where everyone's preference is known exactly, there is no group decision-making process that will get the "right" decision.

Utilitarianism "solves" Arrow's paradox because it's got more information -- under utilitarianism, you know not only what everyone prefers, but by how much they prefer it. In technical terms, it neglects the so-called "ordinality" assumption because it does not treat strong preferences equivalently to weak preferences.

Respond to the criticism I quoted above or I will simply continue to say you are wrong.

 

[bshoc]

Keep saying whatever you want, its irrelevant anyway, the bottom line is one cannot in any way "distribute" utility, much less actually make any valid social elaborations based on this, how do you even begin? Arrows theorem shows in mathematics what can actually be derived from pure logic, that every person has their own set of infinetely variable ordered preferences, and neither the orders of these preferences, or indeed the theoratical utilitarian weight an indavidual places on these preferenes can be in any way related or compared to another. This mean essentially, utility maximisation is possible, I dont argue this point with you - it does show however that it must be maximised on a single-person level, and doing this at the expense of anothers theoratical "utility" is an utter fallacy.

It, in itself can be demostrated quite easily, so if a practical refutation is what you're after, these are it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellsberg_paradox