Cumulative Death

[Gadarene]

If you had to choose between saving the one person you loved the most from death, or 1000 people you know to varying degrees (or no degree), do you have an obligation to do either?

At first glance you could say that one life isn't worth a thousand others, so you are morally require to save the thousand.

But should the harm of death be added up like that? No one experiences' the personal harm of a 1000 deaths. Each individual only experiences their own death.

So on an individual view point, no greater harm is done to whether 1 or a 1000 people die.

So would it be morally acceptable to save one person you love, over a 1000 others?

Morally, I have no idea what to say to this one. People are going to feel a tug because a mass of people is inherently much less relatable to than an individual. It's often why charity drives personalise their advertising and tell a typical individual's story rather than just cite statistics about prevalence of a particular issue.

The experience will not be felt by one person, no, but this doesn't strike me as very relevant. Unless this one person has a very large family or a lot of friends on facebook the death of one will not have as much as an impact on as many people (friends, relatives etc) as the death of a thousand.

(Inspired by a game I finished playing)

Which one, or will that spoilerise things?

I'm back off now to play dark souls 2, which will probably just depress me further

 

[Paradoxum]

Oh yes, situation ethics again. We seldom if ever are faced with this. But if it were my wife, I have a Covenant Marriage and because I honor my commitment's I would save my wife. No question about it!

So a promise is more important than anything else?

 

[Paradoxum]

Morally, I have no idea what to say to this one. People are going to feel a tug because a mass of people is inherently much less relatable to than an individual. It's often why charity drives personalise their advertising and tell a typical individual's story rather than just cite statistics about prevalence of a particular issue.

I'm not sure I'm ever affected by individual stories with charities. I'm more affected by moral arguments. Particularly, Peter Singers one in regards to charity.

In my initial situation I think I implied that you may some people in the large mass. Friends, but not as deeply loved as the individual person.

The experience will not be felt by one person, no, but this doesn't strike me as very relevant. Unless this one person has a very large family or a lot of friends on facebook the death of one will not have as much as an impact on as many people (friends, relatives etc) as the death of a thousand.

But I could use the same argument; that many friends and family in pain isn't added up, because no one person feels it.

I'm not sure what is the right way to think of it. Only individuals feel violation or harm, but we'd want to avoid more people hurt. But I'm not sure if harming less people can be justified as more than a feeling.

Which one, or will that spoilerise things?

Well it's the very end of the story, though you could probably guess the choice could in the end be between these two, since these are the two main issues in the game. But the game is probably better if you don't know what is coming. You have less anxiety over the future.

But it's probably the best game I've play before. By that I mean it's the most meaningful, and the most connected I've felt to fictional characters. Perhaps made me consider how I want to live, and made me slightly lesbian for one of the main characters.

I'm back off now to play dark souls 2, which will probably just depress me further

Never played it, but good luck.

 

[farout]

So a promise is more important than anything else?

Yes!!!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Lets do some group hypnosis. You enter a room. Ghandi is on one side, Jesus is on the other. Theres a knife. Who do you kill?

 

[Paradoxum]

Yes!!!

I'm not sure I agree, but fair enough.

 

[Paradoxum]

Lets do some group hypnosis. You enter a room. Ghandi is on one side, Jesus is on the other. Theres a knife. Who do you kill?

Do we have to make a choice?

It's a pretty difficult choice to make, because it's so vague what the point of the situation is, and how much stuff there is to consider. It doesn't have a more narrow point, like most thought experiments. It also seems to require a good knowledge of history (what might have happened in Jesus died).

 

[Gadarene]

But I could use the same argument; that many friends and family in pain isn't added up, because no one person feels it.

This seems rather solipsistic. I'm not saying it's wrong because a mere multitude are feeling the pain, I'm saying it's wrong because multiple people (families friends) are suffering as opposed to just the nearest and dearest of one.

Well it's the very end of the story, though you could probably guess the choice could in the end be between these two, since these are the two main issues in the game. But the game is probably better if you don't know what is coming. You have less anxiety over the future.

But it's probably the best game I've play before. By that I mean it's the most meaningful, and the most connected I've felt to fictional characters. Perhaps made me consider how I want to live, and made me slightly lesbian for one of the main characters.

I think I know which one you're on about. Won't name it

 

[DaisyDay]

Lets do some group hypnosis. You enter a room. Ghandi is on one side, Jesus is on the other. Theres a knife. Who do you kill?

Why would I kill anyone?