You have a button where you have to pick one of these options. All people are the same age and health. If you choose 2 people to have a painless death, how many more people have to die for you to consider the 1 persons excruciating death instead?

No you can’t pick the people.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    4·
    11 days ago

    I think we can all agree that choosing one painful death over one painless one would be wrong (okay, except for Zamboni_Driver), and that’s true as you extend to some degree upwards, but any amount of extra deaths looks really bad as a serious answer. Which is probably why you’re getting mostly jokes.

    I think a painless death and any non-100% chance of a another painless death would be preferable, so I’ll say sure to the limit point of 2 deaths. If it was me and I could die more than once, I do it a lot to avoid the excruciating pain, but then again that doesn’t really make sense. If it gets to the point where I’m talking about genocide amounts of deaths I guess I’d have to torture the one poor soul.

    • SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPM
      4·
      11 days ago

      Yeah its interesting how this question really wasn’t answerable seriously for so many people.

      I’m actually glad people still have some doubts about right and wrong.

      • Unruffled [they/them]@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        3·
        7 days ago

        If your motivation is reducing human suffering then the two painless deaths are preferable. If your motivation is saving the most lives, then one painful death wins out. It’s a tricky one because if reducing human suffering is your primary objective, it leads to the inevitable conclusion that the best option to reduce human suffering is to never exist in the first place, which isn’t a very humanist conclusion. I think ethically I’d have to go for the one painful death then, but it would be hard to live with. My heart is telling me the two painless deaths would play on my conscience less.