How many people would you save?

The Giant Korean@lemmy.world to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world – 34 points –

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.

34

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.


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

(edit: removed utilitarian from description)

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.

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

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

Quite a nice definition of 'double standards' a.k.a. hypocrisy :-)

How am I being hypocritical? I won't take from others, but I won't give my life for strangers. How is that hypocritical?

I don't know about hyprocritical, but it is rather selfish. Valuing human lives at zero just because you haven't met them is quite extreme if you think about it. I don't see how it is utilitarian either. Saving even 2 people at the cost of 1 is the most utilitarian thing to do.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.)

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.

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

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.