Killing a Billion
This is the scenario:
The human race will die unless a billion people are killed tomorrow. You are the world leader and have to decide who dies.
You are NOT allowed to use any form of lottery system.
The human race will die unless a billion people are killed tomorrow. You are the world leader and have to decide who dies.
You are NOT allowed to use any form of lottery system.
Comments (140)
Note: I a curious about how the scenario makes you feel MUCH more than any attempt to answer it publicly.
We make decisions like that all the time.
Vaccinations and medications and surgeries for example save billions of people, but some people will die as a result. We know that some people will die, but we use these medical interventions anyway cause the good outweighs the bad.
Quoting NKBJ
Usually, I decide to let the human race die.
Perhaps you should have thought out this scenario more. What thing could make such a contingency? You can make the decision to take out 1 billion in India alone and the world will still suffer overpopulation.
I have so many questions but if I had to absolutely make a decision I would step down. I couldn’t decide the fate of human beings on that platform on that magnitude. Morally I would be distraught to know I sentenced a billion people.
True but there is a difference with medical procedures and deciding the fate of a large group of people. Just imagine this scenario for a second. I’m an American, and let’s say I have the power to decide the fate of 1 billion people. Also imagine my social/political beliefs as well as religious beliefs are called into account.
I think more often than not people with this much power make decisions based on personal prejudices not objective reasoning or some utilitarian ideal.
You’re an evil man Sushi lol, brutal question.
I would start with the worst criminals and the terminally ill. The severly mentally disabled would probably be next. Then the oldest and work my way down. Id ask for volunteers as well.
Would I get the numbers from those groups?
The OP didn't explain the scenario in which the lives are being saved/taken, so I think the vaccination example does fit here. Actually it's a timely example, because of the current debate about what the laws should say regarding mandatory vaccines for children.
Most reasonable people would say that even though we know a certain number of people will die as a result of adverse reactions to vaccines, we have to vaccinate to protect the majority.
I see your point
That officially makes you something like an internet miracle :grin: :joke:
This is usual reaction to such hypotheticals. People look for a loophole rather than take on the moral problem at face value. I see you’ve actually thought about it though and I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone to offer a genuine public answer (I don’t think there is such a thing!)
Funny, I thought about asking for volunteers too with the diffrence being I would kill everyone else, and myself, letting those that volunteered live. Of course in “reality” I’d very likely not go to such an extreme but I’d certainly let volunteers live and no doubt be too cowardly to kill myself and thus end up with a sorry and sad existence with my blood stained hands in partial madness - or maybe I’d get over it?
The logistics were not part of the scenario. Take it at face value.
I think it goes beyond even surgeries etc, we accept the deaths of very many people on a daily basis for convenience alone, for example the speed limit. If it was lowered to 5mph everywhere it would drastically reduce the related deaths, but we do not because it wouldnt be practical or convenient so we just accept that yes, people are going to die so that we can get around faster.
I take it not killing the volunteers is their reward for being so selfless? Isnt that kinda shitting on their decision to do the right thing? You’re taking it away from them.
Also, what would be the point of killing yourself? The world would be leaderless not to mention there are surely better candidates than you to be killed, like murderers?
Lastly, im a little confused about the purpose of your thought experiment, I thought once I answered you would have sime sort of follow up. (Looks like I was the only one that actually answered your question too, rather than completely miss the point. TP made me laugh out loud with the difficulties of killing a billion people in 48 hours)
That's true!
Yes, hence I asked if you were satisfied the numbers could be gotten to a billion with the groups I mentioned. You didnt answer.
Obviously its horrific to choose these 1 billion people, so Im gonna want to stop selecting groups as soon as the numbers are satisfied.
I would try and think practically and feel good about saving the human race and feel bad about whatever groups didnt make the cut that didnt really deserve it.
I do not think there is anything sacred or intrinsically valuable about life, so there would be large swaths of people that had to die that I wouldnt be upset about at all. A billion is such a huge number though, eventually it would be necassary to select people that have merit and it would be upsetting to include.
Goodness, there are so many possibilities! Obviously nuclear bombs would be the way to go. Do I have to stay UNDER 1 billion, or can I maybe do more? Once one overcame the fussy inhibition of killing 1 billion, killing 2, 3, or 4 billion would be hard to resist.
Europe and North America would make a nice grouping, if the assigned world leader happened to not be European or North American, perish the thought. The Middle East would work, if one threw in Pakistan and Indonesia. South America and subsaharan Africa have the advantage of keeping fallout way south of Eurasia and North America--too bad for Australia and New Zealand. China or India? Either one. Both?
Do I get a prize if I succeed in killing 1 billion tomorrow? A new IPad, the Nobel, a gift certificate? Something?
What is the point of mocking the thought experiment? You just letting everyone know that killing a billion people is bad? You are under the impression that anyone thinks otherwise?
“Attention everyone! Bitter Crank would never kill a billion people and your a psycho who wants to nuke everybody if you answer the thought experiment! Everybody get that?!”
Virtue signaling, is that it?
The point is to make the decision explicit and as impartial, responsibility diffuse, and random as possible.
I think that is what Sushi had in mind when he took the “lottery” option off the table. The point I think is to have to struggle with the morality of it rather than deligate the responsibility to fate.
I do not even think thats the fairest way to do it anyway, a really really important and good person could die while a truly despicable evil person gets to live. Makes no sense to me, we should get rid of people we don’t need or want first.
Ok.
Quoting I like sushi
I clearly saw that.
Quoting I like sushi
I was actually looking for the reason for the hypothetical. What is the basis for discussion?
I’ll make another thread with a different hypothetical too. A take on the Trolley problem.
Can you expand on “mere practicality”? Why wouldnt that be a valid way of making the decision, if you had to make it. You wouldnt want it to be a purely emotional thing right? (“How many people in France, I hate the French!”)
You're still robbing people of choice, and that is the problem. You're still robbing the worst criminal and preventing them from rehabilitating themselves to be a productive citizen. For the terminally ill the same rules apply, but more importantly the issue is taking away a person's autonomy.
Also, how do you know you'd be fair?
Yes well it is a messy scenario, thats the point. You are not going to get 1 billion volunteers, so someone is going to have to have their personal autonomy violated or there will be no more humans at all.
Its bound to not be “fair”, its not a fair scenario. Again, that is the point...to explore a difficult decision, not a childishly simple one like “is it wrong to kill a billion people?”. Most of is have that one figured out already don’t you think?
What's scary are people who are able to answer this......
I wonder how you'd feel if I had the ability to terminate your mother, father, or anyone in your family that you may have loved as "expendable assets?"
I think murderers would be a fair choice. And other violent criminals perhaps too. They may be losing the chance to be rehabilitated, but any innocent/decent person killed in their stead is losing the chance to continue living the life they earned by actually being good and decent people. Not all non-criminals are decent people, but say you're killing Mr. Rogers cause you hope Charles Manson will "come around" or something is not fair.
The biggest flaw I see in that plan is how to KNOW who's a criminal. (Btw, this has also always been my biggest issue with the death penalty.) The statistics of how many people are proven innocent is kinda scary. The Innocence Project has it at 4.1% , which is kinda high when you're talking about being put to death.
If 4.1% of your 1 billion criminals were innocent, you'd have killed 41 million people unfairly. That's more than the population of California!
It's just a hypothetical.
Hypothetically I know whom in my family I would choose over whom as well. My mom over my dad, my husband over either of them, and my kid over any person in the universe. Just cause it's simple in the abstract doesn't mean it would be easy in real life or that it wouldn't psychologically crush me to live with the guilt.
Quoting DingoJones
I have nothing against thought experiments, but this one seems silly. It ask us to put ourselves in the position of performing a great evil to prevent a greater evil for no particular positive reason. At least the trolley thought problem involves a handful of people rather than the entire species.
It is difficult to get at the extremes of what people might do. The Holocaust would have been difficult to imagine ahead of time. Genocide had either been tried or achieved before the Holocaust, but it hadn't been industrialized. In 1942 it would have been very difficult to imagine the United States and the Soviet Union possessing weapons that could kill off most of the species. By 1950, it was on its way to being fact
Sushi, why don't you propose a thought experiment of this sort involving fewer people, maybe under a thousand. It could be more realistic, and consequently more compelling.
No, whats scary is when someone wastes time trying to hold a moral high ground when in this scenario the alternative to finding an answer for the 1 billion is that ALL humans die.
Good points. I agree about the death penalty, id be all for it if the justice system were more reliable but it isnt, anywhere.
I don’t think the scale really changes the principal of whats being done, except the increase in horror due to the increase in magnitude. Exploring what should be done doesnt change based on the numbers. Lesser of evils and all that.
I'd destroy countries, I think anything else is pretty cruel, the human race will continue and it would be better trying to reduce those left mourning and filled with hate. I don't know if we're factoring in methodology but other methods will involve millions of people trying to kill the billion, I'd rather just shoulder the responsibility alone and do something that doesn't require people seeing and causing so much death. As for which countries, start from the one I'd least like to live in and go up. Maybe I could think of a better way to decide which countries but there's no good way really.
I think the whole "what if it was you" attitude is stupid, nothing works that way well. Very few contexts where groups could function that way.
The question naturally arises of what class(es) of people are least worth keeping. This assumes obviously that people are not equally valuable. This opens a can of worms that can quickly go bad places. Regardless, it reveals something about the person deciding. What is more interesting to me is that the way we evaluate the worth of our fellow humans itself comes into question. Some might not even question the value system by which they will immediately tend to rank people. For example, one might say that some "earn" their existence more than others, that some are more useful than others, and so on, and that what determines ultimately whether a being ought to exist is how useful they are, how much they have "earned" their existence, and so forth. But how do we know any such criterion is the right one? How do we select the right values by which to make the evaluation? Which values ought we to have? It would seem that we might want to rank different value systems. Some values are better than others! Which is the best value by which to decide human worth? But that itself requires another value or set of values. Where does this terminate?
I think it really interesting that so many people think it unproblematic to say that non-criminals ought to exist preferentially over criminals. It raises a multitude of troubling questions!
If we decide to kill a billion to save humanity, we have already committed ourselves to a certain important valuation, namely that humanity is worth saving, perhaps that humanity is in some sense superior to other forms of existence. Perhaps whatever criterion we used to decide that humanity should be saved should also be used to decide which portion of humanity best exemplifies the qualities that make humanity worth saving.
What makes humanity worth saving? Suppose someone says that our experience is more rich than that of worms, and that this is why we are more valuable than worms or the dust we might otherwise be or whatever. We can appreciate Mozart's music, for example, or the night sky, whereas a worm or a pile of dust cannot. Or we can appreciate the fact that we exist. Or... But what makes non-criminals necessarily better at any of this? Perhaps it is in the minds of some criminals, or old people, or sick people, or rejected people, or whatever, where certain potentials reach their highest levels of realization.
And what of this "earning" business? Does anyone really ultimately earn their existence? Think about that one thoroughly.
Is the question of whether a being ought to exist answered by whether or not they earned or otherwise "deserve" their existence? Should the Earth exist? Did the planet "earn" its existence? Does it "deserve" to live? Why this kind of language? Why these words like "earn" and "deserve"? What does our use of them reveal about how we are thinking? Ought we to question all this? This seems to come from our past in which we thought about ourselves in relation to a God with laws who decides who goes up and who goes down based on whether or not we are good boys and girls, based on whether we are obeying and serving properly. But this is all rooted in a primitive fear of powerful storm spirits who are upset because humans have been too noisy. It also must be recognized that the widespreadness of such beliefs serves the interests of certain human powers. "Be useful", "earn your bread", "be good", and so on are maxims often taught by masters to slaves. I am imagining dogs deciding which dogs should die based on which ones are least house-trained, these well-behaved good-doggies obviously thinking themselves the most upright and good and thus worthwhile. Master tells them how good they are, after all! They cause the least trouble in the house! The master here could be the white plantation owner, the pope, the king, the community in relation to the individual, the selfish genes in relation to the organism, and so on.
We might decide whether or not to keep a table saw based on whether or not it serves us well, whether or not it is useful, whether or not it "earns" its place in our workshop. More problematically, we might similarly decide whether or not to keep a slave based on the same criteria. Good versus bad slaves might be evaluated based on the return on investment they give us. Are they worth feeding? Do they produce more money for us than they consume? Are they profitable? And we might teach them to evaluate themselves in this way, so as to better serve us. As an amusing side-note, notice that we might want to teach our slaves that suicide is very, very bad, and that all suicides go to Hell! Of course we don't want our tools offing themselves when their lives suck, especially when their lives naturally suck under our power! We have invested too much in them!
Should human beings be evaluated in this way?
What are the ends to which all that are useful are a means? Is human existence never self-justifying? Must we always appeal to some external benefit? Or are we ends in ourselves? Is a criminal less an end in himself than an "upright" person?
And what makes someone a criminal? The laws of the land? But which land? Which laws? Are these laws always good ones? How do we decide?
And if usefulness is to be a criterion for deciding whether a person ought to live, what about humanity as a whole? Can we use that criterion to justify saving humanity? To whom or what are we useful as a whole? To the planet? Hardly! To God? Really? To intelligence itself? What? To ourselves?
Suppose we try that line, that we ought to exist because we are useful to ourselves. What does it mean to be useful? To feed? I feed myself, therefore I ought to exist. Sounds funny when put that way, right?
Some people seem to think usefulness to the community is what makes a person's existence worthwhile. A person who contributes nothing, perhaps only consuming resources, is considered "worthless". But what of the last person on Earth? How do we decide if that person ought to live? Is their existence evaluated according to whether they benefit the animals and plants around them? Where does this end? And of course, the fact is, they are not beneficial to their environment, but rather largely parasitic/predatory, preying on weaker forms of life, like a lion killing gazelles, like a mugger knocking over old ladies... Ah, the beauty of predators! Might makes right! Right?
Perhaps that is the right principle! Maybe we should say that if humans ought to live far into the future, then we ought to select for continued existence those kinds of humans most likely to live far into the future. Select for existence those with the strongest tendency to exist! Kill the weak! Kill the dumb! Kill the ugly! Maybe those capable of murder are some of those we should keep! Maybe we should just take away a portion of the water and food and let people fight over it so whoever survives shows that they have the strongest ability to ensure their own existence and therefore should exist. Wait... Did I take a wrong turn here somewhere?
What it makes me feel is regret at the Hollywoodisation of ethics. Rather than deliberate over real problems that actually occur in our world, people make up sci-fi scenarios that have nothing to do with real ethics. The blithe amusement with which people have reacted is entirely appropriate.
I blame Phillippa Foote (sp?). But I don't see that anything is added by changing one person to a billion.
Ya, and? Are you saying forcing people to do something is never the answer? Forcing a population to do something is never the answer?
Or are you worried the practice will stick after the extinction of the human race is avoided?
I'm saying that no method ought to be applied, it inevitably leads to a reductio ad absurdom if we truly or sincerely believe in the democratic method.
Isnt that just a refusal to answer the question? In the scenario, every human being in world dies as you stand on a podium saying “do nothing, democratic method and reductio ad absurdum” before you yourself die.
Not necessarily. I would simply recuse myself due to bias. Hopefully, everyone would do that. Those that don't perhaps would qualify for extermination.
If you say so...
Don't worry apparently @DingoJones is comfortable pulling the trigger. I'm quite sure if it was his family the was on the end of that barrel he wouldn't have the position he holds now. In fact, if an apathetic leader was to make the decision using these forum members families I think many people would take issue here as opposed to having a stoic mindset.
If any forum member has seen a human take their last breath especially someone they love they would know how it feels to watch someone die. I happen to have had the unfortunate reality of watching my mother take her last breath at the age of 19 (I am 36 now). Yeah sure humanity will die but for those of us who have loved ones, the answer isn't so simple.
It's revealing to see some members so quick to find some "solution" to this problem, where there really is none. Those that would praise someone as "confident" or "non-apathetic" towards some proposed 'objective standard' is eye-opening.
Right.
I think it's pretty dangerous to assume you know what a room full of strangers has been through.
And, for the record, we do make these kinds of choices all the time. For example when we invest money in cancer research over drug rehabilitation. I personally think it's important to think about whom we save and why and if our reasons for doing so are faulty.
Have you ever saw someone die in front of you? You personally. Not other people on the forum, but you.
I agree. The difference between those health policy decisions and the sci-fi thought experiments is context. Everything depends on context, so a thought experiment that just asks if one would kill a billion people to save the rest of the human race from extinction is just silly.
I will PM you.
I think the value in it, and other thought experiments like the trolley problem, is that it tries to simplify some moral dilemmas, and through that simplification figure out what we would do, should do, and why.
For example, when you ask "how much funding should we give to cancer research versus drug rehabilitation" you get all sorts of political messiness in there ranging from the socialist to the conservative to the libertarian to the anarchist point of view. The question then is derailed from one of the basic considerations of who should live.
Can't you tell us now what the point is?.
Admittedly bery few people are willing to go bery far down this road because they don’t want to face what they are capable of.
If you want a watered down version simply take in this scenario instead:
You’re in a burning a building and can save ONE person. There is a handsome young man, a beautiful young woman, a baby, and a billionaire. Who do you save?
Note: The point is not to answer this in your head. It is not to tell everyone else what your decision is - as I’ve said twice already if anyone told me what their choice is I wouldn’t believe them because the act of making your decision public means you’ve only thought about the problem with the aim of telling others.
I believe I have expressed what you are trying to say. That no ideal (non-biased) standard can be implemented if people are to decide who lives or dies. Isn't that the same idea expressed in any other ethical dilemma that involves (human, since you eliminated the possibility of a fair lottery in this case) decision making.
But, let me present the dilemma to you in standard form.
1. You have a choice.
2. Your bias influences your choice.
3. You can choose to act on your biases or recuse yourself.
4. In a perfect world or with perfect knowledge, everyone realizes this and recuse' themselves.
5. Dilemma averted.
As an important point that reinforces 5 is through mandating that point number 4 be self-reinforcing through making sure that those who claim that they have a non-biased view on the matter be eliminated from choice making on the matter. Here I have in mind, RWA's or closet fascists or closet totalitarians if we are all liberalist or lovers of democracy.
Looks more like you’re avoiding the problem rather than facing it.
No, I am recusing myself, as I have noted. Anyone who claims to have a solution to your problem is the problem.
Was that the alternative? Because if you want to game theorize this, you cannot have a sane person making such a choice....
OK, so that's what the point is not. I thought you were going to tell us what the point is.
It’s a bottomless pit and we’ll all hit a limit at some point which is interesting in and of itself I find.
It would make more sense to ask who somebody would save, not who they would kill. Those decisions do come up in real life, in health policy, as has already been pointed out.
Anyway, I’ll post another thread about alternative Trolley Problem now.
Well the choice will become more and more uncomfortable as you remove the answers people give, but I still do not understand how it will necessarily lead to revelations about secret or hidden prejudices. If one is making practical choices about who is in the 1 billion and then as you suggest those inclusions are taken away 1 by 1, your thought is that they will then have to start making choices based on prejudices and thereby reveal that they do in fact have prejudices but I do not think that is the only possibility. It is possible that a person could have no prejudices and thus would only have arbitrary options at that point, or base the decision off of a practical albeit emotional consideration such as grouping people into categories such as “people I am likely to get along with” and “people I am not likely to get along with”. This might have some overlap with catagories that might otherwise be the focus of prejudice, such as a different racial or religious group, but it wouldnt in fact be based on prejudice against that group but rather the first two groups “people Im likely to get along with” and “people I am not likely to get along with” which as I said can be a practical consideration.
So I think that from your perspective the person might run out of practical options but in actuality they can keep going for as long as is needed.
No it’s not. Those that think this will quickly dismiss the scenario as facile.
QUICK!
If I were you, I'd stay out of very dark places.
Quoting I like sushi
Not on the subject of hobgoblins that I could, would, did, or did not conger up in my mind.
Yeah, so everyone is biased and fickle. Therefore, what?
Yes. I think most people would conclude that it is morally preferable to not kill one billion innocent people. Most people see killing a person as far worse than not saving one. How else can one explain the low rates of donation to life-saving charities like Oxfam?
If you want to argue that not saving a life is the moral equivalent of actively killing somebody, that would be an interesting thread. Although tradition and popular feelings both imply an enormous gulf between the two, there are plenty of philosophers that argue that the gulf is wider than is justifiable. But choose a more likely scenario than this sci-fi one. There are plenty of examples in everyday life. Peter Singer's pond example comes to mind.
If you prefer to approach the problem from a “who shoudl we save?” rather than a “Who should we kill?” proposition then why is this? I would suspect it is a more psychologically comfortable position to take, but is it more or less inhumane?
We know that psychologically if we physically have a hand in something like killing people tend to shy away from it where pulling a lever or pressing a button is distanced enough for people to weigh up the situation in a more abstract manner. The hypothetical is an abstract too and I’m asking people to apply themselves to it as a non-abstract problem.
Because both are loaded questions containing a presupposition. But the presupposition in the first - that we would kill an innocent person - is false for most people, whereas the presupposition in the second - that we would try to save somebody - is not.
I’m used to this reply too. The issue is it’s a hypothetical and it should be treated as such. If you think hypotheticals serve no purpose fair enough, I hope once I post my third and final post on the matter my position will be compelling enough.
Hypotheticals don’t necessarily have to be realistic. I’m interested in the dynamic of “would,” “should,” and “want” expressed both internally and externally. We adjust our responses by the setting we’re in and if we’re on a philosophy forum we act liek we’re on a philosophy forum (whatever they may mean for each of us).
If you look at the burning building scenario this may be more easily accessible for some. You will no doubt be repulsed by having to make a choice because you automatically feel yourself being pulled in this or that direction. We’re all capable of committing the most horrific acts.
I see where you’re coming from. You did originally state something along the lines of “why not chose the people who will live instead of those who’ll die.” That is no different it is likely to make you feel a little better about your choice if you frame the question as saving 6 billlion people rather than condemning 1 billion people to death.
Easy peasy lemon squeezy, I’d simply make a global announcement of the situation and suggest, to anyone who wants to live past tomorrow, that they kill as many people as they can the next day.
Unfortunately, if it worked the world would be populated by sociopaths. :sad:
Secondly I agree [and I think few wouldn't] that we're all capable of committing horrific acts -if that's what you're trying to show- milgram experiment has done this. There is a marked difference between reluctantly, and begrudgingly doing horrid acts in a case of forced choice for some 'noble good' -as in this scenario- and doing it on basis of heinous intentions for no reasonably positive good or for a reason that unnecessarily and carelessly disregards human value. Whatever reason you give for something like taking life, it better be a forced situation with zero alternative and the reason for the choice better be something ethically vetted by more than one person of diverse background and which respects human value.
Then your family would be murdered, you cool with that?
Praxis has operated within your parameters, he is the worlds ruler in your thought experiment. He rules that everyone kill as many people as they can till the one billion is reached. He has made a choice about how they are to be selected. Where has he gone out of bounds? The people are not randomly selected, its everyone. The individuals are making their own choices on who gets killed, although under the pressure of time.
Anyway, I think that your thought experiment has failed. It doesnt show that people have secret prejudice.
As aporiap touched upon, you have designed the scenario so that decisions about who dies are only allowed to be made using prejudice. You take away all other options. This shows nothing except a failure to account for preference and individuals rather than easily identified groups.
I offered some common examples of prejudice but I never said anything about “preferences” not being an option to consider. Someone who seemed so opposed to the idea at least managed to point out the “preference” is a nicer way to view “prejudice” - essentially they are not really all that different though for the purpose of the OP are they? Some judgement of merit will condemn people to death.
Sure, I recognise the similarity of the terms, but they do have a distinction otherwise they would just be one word. However you want to put it, you have left no other option in your scenario, so I think it has failed. Its like saying “choose your favorite color, but you can only choose blue. See? Everybody likes blue the best”.
I'd call them first to grab their bug-out bags and head for the family bunker. We knew this would happen eventually.
Hey, this is America, a democracy. Oh wait, I'm supposed to be the world leader. Well, if I was the world leader it would be a democracy.
Billy, Bob, Sue, Shirley (I never liked her), Johnathan, Wendy, Christopher (he always puts too much sugar in my coffee), Mark, James, Carl, Sandy (she's nice, but she smells like old socks), Tommy, Shaun, Belinda, Georgina (she refused to kiss me in year 7), @Baden, John, Humphrey, William, Graham, Gertrude (horrible name), Little Timmy Cratchit, Frank (always makes an excuse to leave before buying his round), Sally, David, Sheila, Rumpelstiltskin, Robert (never laughs at my jokes), Auntie Pauline, Katina, Dalai Lama, Arthur (he once gave me a funny look), Gregory...
Best criticism I've seen so far.
If nothing else it should show that our moral choices act on arbitrary grounds and that when you remove the arbitrary choices there is no “choice” to be made. Whatever choice we make can never be fully justified.
For myself one of the very first things that sprang to mind was to save the youngest (or kill the oldest). Of course this doesn’t mean I think the oldest are of less value and it’s based on nothing more than “potential” life against those who’ve yet to live fuller lives. If I was to be more precise I’d see that it is not actually “age” but “health” I am really judging by here. Once I look further into this any choice seems like a lottery as practically all demographic differences give only the vaguest of judgements as they’re, for the most part, almost completely arbitrary.
Again this is a poor scenario, apparently your goal is to see the feelings of some who answered, well, congratulations you've accomplished that.
Mentally I do not think most people are capable of pulling the trigger. When I say most people I'm of course assuming, but in part based on that your average person does not have the capacity to kill which is why I believe each day is not a warzone and that every other person on the street is trying to kill you. With that being said in relation to the OP, I do not think people have the capacity to press a button and just kill off people because they believe they are saving humanity.
The OP leaves off the who, what, when, where and why......
@Bitter Crank called sushi out on these types of scenarios already.
Now I see goal posts are being moved by:
Quoting I like sushi
Ok so someone with a biased worldview can choose to kill off 1 billion people....
So, I again ask what is the damn point in this scenario? just to see what we will choose? Is it to infer our moral compass?
Edit:Quoting I like sushi
The OP fails because you are making this up as you go instead of making this clear in the beginning. Now we have four pages of back and forth because you decided to change the rules as people make their opinion.
Gotta love BC
If the hooker is truely down and out a dollar should be enough.
The point of a hypothetical is for people to think about it NOT fro me to tell you how to think. If you wish to establish some fiction as to scenario is as it is do so, but it’s not important.
I didn’t change the rules. I stated parts of the reason for doing this already, one being that once you’ve found yourself at a decision you can live with to move the goal posts then, to push on further and see where your limits are.
You don’t find it interesting that someone said I should focus on “preferences” instead?
I’m going to make a third thread - no need for derogatory/mocking remarks about that guys I understand the tone coming my way well enough ;)
It probably won’t be much use to you if you’ve failed to see the point of any of this. Feel free to take a look though maybe we’ve just got our wires crossed.
Hmmm so I can make a thread with no point of direction and say "have at it haus?"
Quoting I like sushi
My only issue is you didn't say that in the very original post.
Quoting I like sushi
Sushi I have no personal issue with your scenario, I'm quite fond of it, I just don't like answering things without a reason or direction. Kinda like I wouldn't want to be in a perfectly new car with someone who is completely blind driving on the side of a mountain with no guard rails.
I don’t agree with this. Just like the suggestion that there are people who have no prejudices. That is not to say that people do general act from day-to-day in a brutal manner, just that EVERYONE is capable of murder and hatred if pushed far enough.
I guess you could argue that when we reach such base states we are not “we” anymore. Once we’ve resorted to our more “animalistic” (not the best term but I imagine you understand well enough) drives our authorship, rational action, goes out the window.
Assume I'm a powerful Marvel character......
If I gave you a gun and told you I will kill you if you don't shoot that 1 month old baby in the head would you do it?
I make no apologies for this. I was actually expecting people, between the odd protest, to answer it in part or come at the problem in as level a headed manner as possible (trust me it’s not the first time I’ve posted this scenario online).
The initial reaction of most people in these situations (myself included until I started to think about hypotheticals differently) it to ask for more details and qualifiers. We tend not to want to jump to conclusions about the question, yet the hypothetical is of use in exploring this urge to do so.
You’ve mentioned you’re a trained in psychology so maybe it would help to view this in a Jungian manner where you approach your “shadow” ... I say “maybe”, but really that is probably what I personally find most beneficial.
Nobody does really. Once when I posted this somewhere some people reacted as if I was playing judge and juror. Even when I told them I wasn’t insisting on an answer (they never gave one) they couldn’t let the idea go.
And what is the point of this question? If you’d posted this what would the reaction have been? Disgust? Revulsion? No doubt you’d have been mocked and attacked to various degrees too.
You can guess what my answer would be and most other people’s answers too. That is besides the point for the purpose of the hypothetical as far as I am concerned and I’ll go into detail about this in another thread where I’ll provide links to the two scenarios I’ve posted.
Saying something and acting it out are not the same though as we all should have learnt in life by now.
Not the scenario, the thought experiment. You seem to be backing off from the purpose of it being to effect self awareness of prejudice, and making the much weaker offering that the purpose is to make people think. Thats fine, its a thought experiment after all. Ultimately though, if its about prejudice I maintain it fails.
How are you able to offer this simplistic gem, but you go full retard about a more difficult moral equation?
...
Nevermind, I answered my own question in the asking. On to your own thought experiment...
I would tell you to go fuck yourself and await the mighty Marvel deathblast coming my way.
As for my example first thought. Age spring to mind, yet if I was to consider my age as factoring into this decision I may think differently. If I was very old I may choose this option simply because I wouldn’t have to live with the decision - the avoidance of personal pain is something I would have to take into account (Would it be taking the easier option for me and is this appropriate given that many others are lumped into my age bracket). Anyway, there is plenty to look at there! Someone may view 50% oldest and 50% of youngest as a better option - I wouldn’t, yet I can imagine how such a position could be argued for because I’ve made the difficult effort to think about that in the past.
Next I remove that option and go further, and further until the application of rational thought is incredibly sparse. For example someone asked above about giving a dollar to person A, B or C, yet most of the information as trivial and what I read was “scuffy,” “alcoholic,” and “prostitute”. The matter of “race” and “sex” I am generally indifferent toward. Yet if the question was based purely on race and nothing more I feel an inner confusion, much like if someone was to ask me if I prefer to look up or down. I instantly apply abstract ideas to this where “up” seems more “positive” to my mind so I’d go for that, or my mood may influence my decision and then it becomes a question of what I would consider the “best” mood to be in to make such choices. Other things are more socially ingrained such as “women and children first,” which is generally something I agree with especially the “children” part as they are more naive about life and survival.
Maybe it fails for you, maybe a different hypothetical would suit you better? I’m not saying it is the best hypothetical ever because it is tailored more toward approaching humanity en masse rather than as individual beings (which is an issue in and of itself in how one approaches the problem posed).
I understand how it works. My issue is that you leave prejudice as the only remaining option once you remove all the other answers a person has for who or how they will choose. This doesnt say anything meaningful about facing ones own prejudices, as you have left no other option. Thats as simple as I care to put it, no sense in just repeating myself.
Anyway, an interesting idea. Thanks.
So we are using derogatory phrases now? I mean, judging by the sequences of your responses I wouldn't make references about anyone's intellectual capacity.
Quoting DingoJones
Gotcha
I dont see my response as any more insulting than the implication I am some sort of sociopath because I offered an answer to the thought experiment.
I'm not diagnosing you, you inferring that but carry on with this ridiculous discussion.
Holy shit, in your little scenario! I would tell you to go fuck yourself if you were a powerful marvel villain who told me to kill a baby or die! Holy christ, how did you not understand that!?
I was answering your thought experiment, or dilema or whatever it was supposed to be.
:lol: :lol:
Ok, ok. Ill take the swearing out cuz apparently it causes your brain to collapse.
Here we go:
If you were a super powered marvel villain, and you demanded i kill a 10 month old baby or you would kill me, I would say
“No, I am not going to kill that baby, you will just have to kill me”
Then assuming you, the fake pretend you that is a marvel super villain, follow through with your threat then I would be killed.
Clear?
You're pretty immature aren't you? I pray to God you're 19 or something.
Lol, oh ok. I get it. Nicely done troll. I ignored you at first but you got me in the end. Kudos, honestly. You got me good there. I was like
“How is this person able to string together complete sentences with such low comprehension levels?!”
Still having a good chuckle over it. How did I fall for that? Im usually so cautious about that kind of thing.
How about this...
We don't choose those who must die but, rather, choose those who must live. Good people, women, children, men to carry on the species, etc. may be selected to live. Let the rest die.
Perhaps if we take this as an ''opportunity'' to create utopia instead of a moral ''burden'' we can make some headway.
Then the motive shifts from something one is being forced to do to something one wants to do. That WOULD be facist.
You would no longer be weighing the lesser of two evils (1 billion vs everyone), instead you are weighing the loss of 1 billion vs how much mileage you can get from the 1 billion lives lost towards your own vision of how the world should be. Thats facism.
I understand the temptation to want to make those 1 billion deaths mean something, but I have to disagree. Facism has always, always been a bad decision, even with the best of intentions.
The topic deserves humor because the topic wasn't entirely thought out. Personally i would volunteer to be killed in this instance. I've been held at gunpoint during an attempted robbery and i resisted the two robbers and they went away with nothing. I don't think alot of people who feel they are important are all that important compared to other people. I value veterans and military personell because i feel they have been put in harms way and put in situations that they didn't deserve to be put into let alone the fact that they are defendng this country. But i understand veterans are a separate issue from this topic.
I believe personal value has more to do with how hard you work to help others and also in addition to that how well you treat other people.
I feel this topic is trite but its always fun to argue/philosophize with people.
What purpose does your post serve for you, me and others? If you don’t like the question posed why respond. How is it different from having a dislike of football yet attending a game to jeer and mock the supporters and players?
What are you thinking?
I’m genuinely interested to see if you know why posted and what kind of response you were expecting from me if any.
Thanks
the same could be said to you for making this forum topic. I've made forum topics before and people tore into me because of the topic. This is a part of philosophizing or arguing or debating. Get used to it. I didn't ignore the hypothetical in the OP and i certainly didn't make up my own. I think this sort of topic is the sort of thing that elitist like to thnk about and the way it was phrased in the op i thought it was trite.
that was meant for i like sushi. I'm not real sure how that message got sent to you. I may have hit the wrong button.
the same could be said to you for making this forum topic. I've made forum topics before and people tore into me because of the topic. This is a part of philosophizing or arguing or debating. Get used to it. I didn't ignore the hypothetical in the OP and i certainly didn't make up my own. I think this sort of topic is the sort of thing that elitist like to thnk about and the way it was phrased in the op i thought it was trite.
My mistake! I guess I was just taken in more by the manner of the reply than the content. You chose to exterminate the human race via suicide. Why?
You find it too “elitist” for your taste? What exactly do you mean by this?
Thanks
You're right but what choice do you have? The scenario is like suicide and I suppose if we have to go why not in our best suit?
There is going to be a third thread tying these questions together. Just not had time to do it yet.
Also, the question was not just about choosing to have one billion die, it was more about having to make the choice and the kind of thoughts that flood our mind - the more emotional responses and the attempts to logically make a choice; as we’ve seen there is always the tendency to reframe the question to make it more appealing too.
And yes, it is irritating when people try to get away with breaking the rules. "Let's ignore the spirit of the thought experiment and look for a loophole!".
If I’d just posted the one I’m planning to prior to both of these posts I’d have heard “I don’t do that!” and been unable to show my thinking behind these hypotheticals. Inevitably people will be annoyed too for feeling like they’ve been led into a trap.
It’s going to be interesting to see what people make of my arguments for hypothetical positions and the dynamics of social interactions upon moral sensibilities.
Anyway, no more posts here from me unless absolutely necessary ;) I’ll save it for the next thread I make. Comedy is something we clutch for when tough choices are presented; why this is is a whole other package I hope to unwrap.
I'll just announce this thing to the world .
I'll kill those billion lives who were likely the first to defend themselves in anyway possible.
I'll lead the human race with those who were ready to die instead of the others so that humanity stays with humans.
P. S. I know this is not practical. I choose this kind of answer in the case where the question too is not practical. Any thing similar to this purpose can also be chosen
The “practicality” of getting the information was certainly not part of the hypothetical. The issue for you to judge by yourself, in your own manner (if you wish to!) is why this is the best option over other possible options and if removed what would, as you put it, be “any thing similar” (?) ... and again, I’m not really asking for a public declaration I’m more intrigued in the process of thought and the emotional conflict.
Thanks for the reply :)
My first reaction was ‘here’s a perfectly good reason why I would never be world leader’. The responsibility for selecting individual lives to end in order to continue humanity as a whole is not something I would even come close to accepting. My reluctance to lead or to make permanent decisions for others is a character trait I have long ago come to terms with, especially as a parent and in my career. Even if, for whatever highly improbable reason, I found myself in the position of being the world leader, it’s not a decision I would take on alone. This is a decision that must be made for humanity as a whole, and therefore by humanity as a whole.
Having said that, my decision has become this:
I would call for volunteers, but would ensure their names be forever acknowledged and recorded for posterity, and their family (or nominated beneficiary) would receive a significant financial benefit. Whatever dollar amount would be a small price to pay for the continuation of humanity (I would assume that as a singular world leader, I could command quite a sum). The number of volunteers would be updated live, so that those considering whether or not they would volunteer would be complicit in the knowledge that if the 1 billion isn’t reached in time, they will all die anyway. And all of it would be made public, streamed live, whatever it takes so that all of humanity is aware of the significance of this act. And, of course, I would be the first to add my name to the list.
The only leadership I could offer in this situation is to have faith in the ultimate altruism of humanity, because otherwise would we really be worth saving?
This was probably not what you were chasing, but every other thought led to inaction for me.
The point you move past our inaction I wouldn’t expect to be revealed publicly. I doubt you’d remain inactive if your suggestion was taken off the table - which it was as you’ve placed the decision, in part at least, out of your hands.
And I doubt the decision would ever be completely in my hands, no matter how you try to force or contrive the situation. I don’t think that’s how the world works - and I get that it’s only a thought experiment - but the minute anyone besides me finds out what’s about to go down, people will have their own opinions on what should be done. They certainly wouldn’t leave it up to one person to decide for them, no matter who they are.