this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
33 points (94.6% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26260 readers
1262 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


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 !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. 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 info@lemmy.world. 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 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Jay@sh.itjust.works 16 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.

[–] OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one 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@sh.itjust.works 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.

[–] G0FuckThyself@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

As the kids say: "Username checks out."

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 11 points 1 year ago

I'd be the last person on earth.

[–] PiecePractical@midwest.social 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.

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 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.

[–] MakeItCount@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] milkjug@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Zero gang represent!

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

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@sh.itjust.works 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.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 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@sh.itjust.works 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.

[–] zacher_glachl@lemmy.world 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@sh.itjust.works 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.

[–] Iamdanno@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 1 year ago

In the neighborhood of 6 billion

[–] Monster96@lemmy.world 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.

[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 3 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.

[–] TheGiantKorean@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Updated the post. Painless and instantaneous.

[–] tallwookie@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

probably somewhere between -1 billion and zero.

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

[–] Kerfuffle@sh.itjust.works 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?

[–] TheGiantKorean@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Kerfuffle@sh.itjust.works 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.)

[–] AlexTheTurtle@lemmy.blahaj.zone 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.

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

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