this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
34 points (92.5% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27049 readers
2130 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Hypothetically speaking, if your death would save the life of one or more complete strangers that you know nothing about, how many people would need to be saved (if any) in order for you to give up your own life?

EDIT: Your death would be painless and instantaneous.

all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Jay 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Strangers I know nothing about? Sorry, as I dislike people in general, I can't give a number. I can't even say if such a number exists. What if I say 100 and they're all racist?

I would give my life for my son though. He ain't no racist. He's two years old.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Or what if they are 100 people who are all lying in hospital beds with incurable illnesses that cause excruciating pain, wishing they could die, and now doomed to years more of their unbearable existence?

[–] Jay 6 points 1 year ago

I would first ask them how they feel about immigration. But joking aside: In the situation itself I would probably feel different.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

I'd be the last person on earth.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

As the kids say: "Username checks out."

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The situation would have to be rather intentional. Like I'm in a room next to a room with the other people and the fact that my death saves them is an absolute beyond questioning. Ideally I'd also be able to see them.

In that situation probably just 2.

I don't think this can be extrapolated to any possible real world scenario.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Here's the scenario. You are sitting in a 40ft shipping container with a heavy steel divider placed somewhere in the structure which splits it into two unequally sized rooms.

The container is perfectly balanced on a steel beam above a cylindrical well such that if nobody moves from their current position the container remains in place. If it were to tip in either direction, the occupants at that fallen end of the structure would be submerged and drowned.

Inside there are two camera feeds displayed on a monitor. One shows the occupants of the other partition: X number of people of mixed age and demographic. You know nothing about them.

The other feed shows that the door at either end of the container is completely blocked by the concrete walls of the well, but also shows a door which would provide an easy exit from the well if one side of the container were raised at the moment arm of the steel beam.

How many people must occupy the other side of the container before you will calmly walk to the far end of yours and tip yourself into the water, freeing those that remain?

If you answer honestly, you don't wake up in the container tomorrow.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

I think if it were over 100 it would be almost always be a yes. But to be entirely honest, t probably depends a lot on the day and the mood I'm in. There are days I might do it for one or two. On the other hand, there are days when I think the planet probably needs fewer humans so yeah, as bad as it sounds to say out loud, it depends entirely on the type of day I'm having.

Today, I think it'd take at somewhere between 10 and 20. I guess I'm feeling optimistic.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

From a utilitarian perspective, if it helps people I'm invested in then the number would be low. But if it helps people who have no connection with my life whatsoever, then the number would be close to infinity.

But if you reverse the question and ask how many people I would kill so that I could live, that would be zero. Even if I have no connection to them

[–] Kerfuffle 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From a utilitarian perspective, if it helps people I’m invested in then the number would be low. But if it helps people who have no connection with my life whatsoever, then the number would be close to infinity.

This is basically the exact opposite of utilitarianism. The utilitarian perspective would be to look at it in an objective way and determine what choice, overall, lead to the highest utility. Your decision is completely subjective.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Fair, I suppose I meant highest utility for ME and my people. What would be the right way to describe it?

[–] Kerfuffle 1 points 1 year ago

I would just leave the "From a utilitarian perspective" part out. The rest of what you wrote seemed to describe your position adequate.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

At least two. A cell population never survived if their mitosis only splits them into a single cell. Think of me as a cell going through mitosis. If I'm bargaining, I like to increase my legacy in the process.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Zero gang represent!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Depends on what type of death it is. Push a button and you're painlessly gone with no risks? Might as well make that minimum of 0 people.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Updated the post. Painless and instantaneous.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

In the neighborhood of 6 billion

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Is every second person on this fucking website suicidal? I guess the "lemmings" checks out.

As for me, it would have to be a number of people that, by their sudden absence, manifestly affects the life of people I do know and care about. Like, at least a billion or so if randomly chosen

edit: and that means possibly fewer if not random and more focused on my geographical location. If 100 mio die on my continent alone then the rest is still pretty screwed.

[–] Kerfuffle 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As for me, it would have to be a number of people that, by their sudden absence, manifestly affects the life of people I do know and care about. Like, at least a billion or so if randomly chosen

If they ask someone else, you'd better hope that other person doesn't think like you - for your sake and the sake of people you care about.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

As much as possible? My life is worth a lot to me, yo

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Depends on the circumstances. If I was meant to choose between a small group of people I love versus millions of other people I don't know I'd choose the people I love. But, if I were meant to save hundreds of other people, including my loved ones, then I'd gladly do that to.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can't do that, bc I have already given up my life.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I hope you feel better friend.

[–] Kerfuffle 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So is the question how many it would take for me to believe that I should give my life, or how many before I'd actually have the willpower to choose to die?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The former. So how many it would save for you to be willing to die.

[–] Kerfuffle 6 points 1 year ago

I hope you're just looking for interesting responses rather than a definite answer!

I genuinely wonder if saving a negative number of people would be better overall. Humans, especially ones in developed countries like those privileged enough to be posting about stuff like this are responsible for a lot of negative effects we don't really like to think about. We benefit from exploiting other people, animals, using resources in unsustainable ways.

I think even if someone takes a lot of individual steps like going vegan, trying to recycle, minimizing transportation and other consumption, not having children, etc that they're still not even going to break even with the harmful effects just existing causes.

If it wasn't for effects like that I'd probably say 2-3 but in reality I'm not really sure if I truly should save anyone. (By the way, you don't have to worry about me going out and murdering people.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the people im saving will cumulatively live more than me then ill do it. Simple utilitarian calculus. If Time lost < time saved do it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By that logic, you should be donating all your organs and every drop of blood right now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I should, but i am selfishly not doing so cause im lazy. But if it was just a button to press i dont know if i could convince myself not to press it and save someone.