Imagine a mad scientist kidnaps you and your family, and offers you the following two options:
(1) He will let your family live in a pleasant but secluded captivity, but you will be made to believe (eg through hypnosis, or whatever) that they were all tortured and killed.
(2) He will torture and kill your family, but you will be made to believe that they are safe and well in a pleasant but secluded captivity.
After making the choice, all recollection of the bargain will be erased from your memory. Which option would you choose? Most people say #1 - the desire fulfillment option. We want our families to be well in fact, and this is more important to us than whether we merely believe that all is well.
I still agree that the first option seems preferable, from a first-person perspective (i.e. if you consider making the decision yourself). But what about the equivalent 'third-person' choice?
Suppose instead that it is Bob's family that is kidnapped, and Bob - rather than you - who has to make the decision. Now, I ask you, which result do you think would be better for Bob?
My intuitions here are far less clear. But I think that (probably) option #2 is better for Bob. Yet I know that if I was in Bob's position, I would choose #1, even for selfish rather than moral reasons - I really would prefer my family to be safe in fact. So judging from the third-person perspective, I have a different idea of Bob's wellbeing, than I do from the first-person perspective. Is that odd?
I'm quite confused by this case, and would very much appreciate hearing some other people's intuitions here. (I don't get a huge number of visitors to this site, so please do leave a quick comment if you can spare the time!)
Which result do you think is better for Bob?