Would you Or Would you not?

[Dargos]

Two hypothetical situations.

1. By Plot Device, you are aware of an event that will doom the population (150,000) of city of Nowhere, in the country of Somewhereastan to death.
Through the power of Handwavium, you and only you are able to prevent this from happening, but only at the cost of your life. Would you sacrifice yourself to stop the event?


2. By Plot Device, an event will happen that will totally destroy(kill) the population of a large country (pop. 100 million+ ), However, by the power of Handwavium, you and only you can prevent this from happening by the sacrifice (death) of the inhabitants of the Country of Somewhereelseastan(pop. 1.5 million). Would you scacrifice the population of one country for another?



Just curious of the responses.

[Molyneux]

Two hypothetical situations.

1. By Plot Device, you are aware of an event that will doom the population (150,000) of city of Nowhere, in the country of Somewhereastan to death.
Through the power of Handwavium, you and only you are able to prevent this from happening, but only at the cost of your life. Would you sacrifice yourself to stop the event?


2. By Plot Device, an event will happen that will totally destroy(kill) the population of a large country (pop. 100 million+ ), However, by the power of Handwavium, you and only you can prevent this from happening by the sacrifice (death) of the inhabitants of the Country of Somewhereelseastan(pop. 1.5 million). Would you scacrifice the population of one country for another?



Just curious of the responses.

Barring any other factors, yes to both questions.
I'd probably be very broken up about the first, though.

[K. A. Pital]

Yes to both. However, I ensure that the people of Nowhere know that I save them, I do my self-sacrifice right at the time of the event and with major publicity. I want memorials and stuff to at least commemorate my self-sacrifice.

The second, however, I would do without any publicity. It's a cold necessity that dictates cruel measures, and not something to be proud of.

[The Spartan]

I'd like to believe the answer is yes to both. In the second it is definitely so as 1 million strangers<<100 million strangers.

The first is more difficult. I'd like to believe I'd have the courage to save them but at the same time, when my imminent death is staring me in the face, it's hard to say that I wouldn't chicken out. Presuming I succeed and overcome the terror I would be feeling, well, all's well that ends well, so to speak. Presuming I don't and I fail, I would carry the guilt for the rest of my life. Which, ironically, might not be that long whether others know of it or not, because I suspect I would fall into a depression and may become suicidal.

[General Zod]

1) - If my death is going to be absolute, then maybe. Depending on how obvious it is. If there seems to be enough of a chance I might come out alive, then I probably would even if it did result in me dying. I don't like no-win scenarios.

2) - That depends on whether or not I care about the country in question. Some shithole in Africa? Meh. Someplace like Italy, Britain, or Japan. . .maybe.

[The Grim Squeaker]

1. Maybe, depends on whether I know a shit about the city and care for it (Iraq, Africa, Arab nations will encite little emotional chords from me).

2. Yes I would, 100 million vs 1.5 million isn't a real contest, especially if both are emotionally neutral to me.

[Faabio]

1) After thinking about this I think I would not sacrifice myself for some unknown people. I'm too selfish and scared to die. Cant really give an answer if that figure included friends and family.

2) Yes. As this does'nt involve me personally it is relativly easy to choose the higher number to survive. and with those figures it becomes harder to feel guilt over, like statistics. I would still most likely have nightmares about it or some sleepless nights. .

[Big Phil]

1. No - I happen to think my life is sufficiently valuable that I'm giving it up.

2. No - it's immoral and unjust for me to decide that killing 1.5 million is better than killing 100 million. The answer seems obvious (1.5 dead is better than 100 dead), but it's completely immoral and evil to make those sorts of decisions about people (who lives and who dies). For all I know I'm saving 100 million rapists and murderers and freeing 1.5 million saints...

[Big Phil]

Correcting my post

1. No - I happen to think my life is sufficiently valuable that I'm NOT giving it up.

2. No - it's immoral and unjust for me to decide that killing 1.5 million is better than killing 100 million. The answer seems obvious (1.5 dead is better than 100 dead), but it's completely immoral and evil to make those sorts of decisions about people (who lives and who dies). For all I know I'm saving 100 million rapists and murderers and freeing 1.5 million saints...

[K. A. Pital]

The answer seems obvious (1.5 dead is better than 100 dead), but it's completely immoral and evil to make those sorts of decisions about people (who lives and who dies). For all I know I'm saving 100 million rapists and murderers and freeing 1.5 million saints...

The general statistic of people living in a country speaks strongly against that. They should have roughly similar proportions of harmful and useful individuals. From a rationalist point of view, the destruction of 100 is a greater harm to society than the destruction of 1, unless this 1 is in a specific position (100 goons versus a leader whose death will cause a catastrophe). But the OP specifically says that it's a generic large country versus a generic small country. The choice is clear, there are no special circumstances.

[Enforcer Talen]

Two hypothetical situations.

1. By Plot Device, you are aware of an event that will doom the population (150,000) of city of Nowhere, in the country of Somewhereastan to death.
Through the power of Handwavium, you and only you are able to prevent this from happening, but only at the cost of your life. Would you sacrifice yourself to stop the event?


2. By Plot Device, an event will happen that will totally destroy(kill) the population of a large country (pop. 100 million+ ), However, by the power of Handwavium, you and only you can prevent this from happening by the sacrifice (death) of the inhabitants of the Country of Somewhereelseastan(pop. 1.5 million). Would you scacrifice the population of one country for another?



Just curious of the responses.

1. No.
2. Yes.

[Covenant]

1) No.

The city of Nowhere in Somewherestan sounds like some kind of bumfuck place I don't even care for now that it's still there, since it's obviously so unimportant that I'm not even aware of it. Some random ass-end place that nobody has ever heard of is not worth my sacrifice to me, and that's even with my martyr complex! Let me save something spectacular.

Also, if I have access to media, why can't I just make people leave the city? If I have no media, then nobody's gonna know. It'll just look like I killed myself, and my family will be crushed, and my loved one will be crushed, and my dog will cry forever and ever, and 150,000 people in Jerkistadt are going to go around being just as ignorant, racist, cruel and so on as they were before.

Hell, I'd be more motivated to sacrifice myself to save Latveria than Nowhereville. I also wouldn't sacrifice myself quietly for just about anything. If people never know that they were saved, they won't change, so they're going to try to destroy themselves again some other time. People learn something from near-misses like the Cuban Missile Crisis. They don't learn much from stuff they don't even hear about.

2) Yes.

In this case it's a simple numerical swap. If the situation was "either one person or ten people die" then you save the 10 people. If it's 10 or 100, you save 100. So 1.5 million go down to save 100 million easily.

I think it's wrong for me to make this decision, I do not have the right to impose on those 1.5 million people a decision I would not make for myself, but if it's one or the other then I am forced to choose the path that creates the least suffering.

[Tasoth]

Fun questions. The reasoning for your answers should both be reasonably similar.

For instance, I have decided I would not in the first instance as 150,000 is a drop in the pan compared to a planetary population of 6 billion and growing. Similarly, I could say no to the first one as it's a hundred million. That's a massive amount of people to lose in one go, but it's really not going to do much to the overall planetary population. I could also say yes towards condemning 1.5 million to death because it's smaller then 100million and pretty much insignificant in the grand scale of things.

But then I could say Yes to both because my life is not as great as 150,000 and 1.5mill is lesser then 150 mill. Or one of many variations and reasons.

But my answers are No and Yes.

[darthbob88]

For the first one, I would die IF and ONLY IF I could achieve some major change by my death. If the good people of Nowhere are going to stop being redneck bastards and start producing geniuses for it, then yes, I will happily give my life to protect them. One individual against the worthwhile products of a population of 150,000 should be a no-brainer.

For the second, same reasoning. If the people of Somewhereastan will actually produce more valuable material than the people of Somewhereelseatan, then yes, I would wipe out Somewhereelseastan.

My reasoning in each case is not just based on the number of the people, but on how valuable each person is. Skilled labor is more necessary than unskilled labor, and educated specialists are more valuable than uneducated laborers.

[General Brock]

1. No. I'm sure I could save them AND myself, so as to throttle this Handwavium guy personally while standing on Plot Device's steaming corpse.

If I fail, well, it won't matter to me anymore anyway.

2. Yes; however Somewhereleastan will probably die anyway as I fumble about looking for a way to save both.

[Molyneux]

1. No. I'm sure I could save them AND myself, so as to throttle this Handwavium guy personally while standing on Plot Device's steaming corpse.

If I fail, well, it won't matter to me anymore anyway.

2. Yes; however Somewhereleastan will probably die anyway as I fumble about looking for a way to save both.

If you're going to ignore the OP, why the hell do you bother posting in the thread?

[Luzifer's right hand]

No. Self-sacrifice would be the right thing to do but I belive that I do not have the guts to kill myself.

No. Failure to render assistance to a group of people is a lesser crime than directly killing another group of people imho.

[Seggybop]

1. No. I'm sure I could save them AND myself, so as to throttle this Handwavium guy personally while standing on Plot Device's steaming corpse.

If I fail, well, it won't matter to me anymore anyway.

2. Yes; however Somewhereleastan will probably die anyway as I fumble about looking for a way to save both.

If you're going to ignore the OP, why the hell do you bother posting in the thread?

It's relevant to the OP's question to state that you'd refuse to accept the truth of Handwavium and try your best to save everyone. General Brock's response is the same as mine.

[phred]

1. Yes. My life is fairly insisgnificant and wouldnt be missed in the grand scheme of things.
2. Yes. Its the whole "lesser of 2 evils" thing

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Yes. By the power of handwavium, the certainty of success and death would make my remaining hours a powerful and rewarding experience, and I think it would be justified, assuming the natives aren't all going to rape and pillage and repress eachother to death afterwards.

Yes. Given the data, sacrificing the fewer would be the better choice, all things being equal.

[Singular Intellect]

Two hypothetical situations.

1. By Plot Device, you are aware of an event that will doom the population (150,000) of city of Nowhere, in the country of Somewhereastan to death.
Through the power of Handwavium, you and only you are able to prevent this from happening, but only at the cost of your life. Would you sacrifice yourself to stop the event?

I honestly don't know. Logically speaking, my life would be an insignificant price to pay for such an act. On the other hand, my stubborn will to live isn't something I can just handwave away. I suspect it would depend upon the specifics of te scenario.

2. By Plot Device, an event will happen that will totally destroy(kill) the population of a large country (pop. 100 million+ ), However, by the power of Handwavium, you and only you can prevent this from happening by the sacrifice (death) of the inhabitants of the Country of Somewhereelseastan(pop. 1.5 million). Would you scacrifice the population of one country for another?

All other things being equal, I will always pick the larger number of people to survive.

[Darth Mordius]

1. Ehhhh. Morally, I should sacrifice myself: however, I'm young and don't want to die. I think if it came down to it I would save myself, but I would be pretty torn up about it.

2. Math wins. 1.5 million deaths is tragic. 100 million more so.

[Big Phil]

Something occurred to me as I was reading this thread - those of you saying you'll kill yourselves to save the city, how about you kill yourselves and leave me all of your money. I'm pretty positive my life is more valuable than yours, and I could sure use some more money... c'mon, put your money where your mouths are...

[Stark]

It turns out it's easy for random people to decide to kill 1.5M people they don't care about?

[Singular Intellect]

It turns out it's easy for random people to decide to kill 1.5M people they don't care about?

I'm not sure I see the logic in calling prevention of death and commiting the act the same thing. One is not a murderer because one doesn't step in to stop the act.