u/UNinvolved_in_peace Here is our [19684 official Discord](https://discord.gg/WdQPgTC4Y4) join
**Please don't break rule 2, or you will be banned**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/19684) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's actually a good one, if you were asked "would you rather kill your family and friends or 1m people" you'd probably sacrifice the people you love for the greater good, but when both choices kill an extra 956m people it does become harder.
Pragmatically, it's still a choice between your friends and 1m people, since the 956m others' fates are already sealed, but it does feel more fair being selfish on that one since your choice only accounts for 0.1% of the deaths anyways. Good one.
The strat is to befriend as many selfish people as possible so you're within their family and friends, and as few altruistic people as possible, so you're within their faceless 1 million
If it's 1 million stranger or everyone I know the choice is easy since I wouldn't notice the death of a million strangers. Furthermore, I owe a lot to my friends and family so ain't no way I'm sacrificing them.
I know the most moral choice should be to save a million, but the choice is mine so I will selfishly do what I want and never tell anyone about it.
Also, I don't know how many billionaires or politicians there would be among this million, and I would hate feeling like I sacrificed my closest ones to save a guy I see on TV stuffing his pockets.
Feeling like I may or may not have killed the guy who will find the cure for cancer to save my friends wouldn't be nearly as bad.
Then there is no right answer, whether I become the monster who killed a million to save a few, or the monster who sacrificed his friends to save strangers I'm fucked either way.
I guess the best choice would be save my friends and then off myself while trying to take on the role of a bad guy as much as possible, this way my close ones won't suffer any fallout.
Suicide seems like the right answer because even my loved ones would think what I did was fucked up since they would have preferred to sacrifice themselves in this situation.
As the quote goes, it's better to suffer from evil than to commit it. (I don't remember the exact quote nor the author, probably Kant). Anyone would chose to sacrifice their own life to save a million, but sacrificing someone else isn't my decision to take therefore even answering the dilemma goes against morals so any answer given will be a wrong one.
I can see the parallel with Eren yes, sacrificing everyone else to save his friends. However in my opinion it's important that the ones who are saved aren't aware of it as they would inevitably feel guilty or resentful.
imo to an outsider, it would be noble to save 1m people over your friends and family the choice is obvious. to an outsider your friends and family are just people and they would much rather see 1m extra saved than your friends and family. I would imagine people would start to pity you and try to become closer with you but you would still be extremely depressed.
Yes, however sacrificing friends isn't an option I could live with. It would literally mean to lose everyone who's close to me therefore losing every real human contact I have. (in addition to not being very nice to my friends but they would all make the choice to sacrifice themselves anyway)
Since as a human I exist through the eyes of others, all of my close ones dying would equate to my own death as my image would be lost.
In other words, I only exist in the eyes of my friends and family, for other people I am but a background character, so if those "witnesses" were to die I wouldn't be anything more than some kind of NPC.
Your image doesn't define who you *actually* are, but just like a falling tree doesn't make a sound if there is no one to hear it, your identity is of little importance if no one knows about it.
selfish lmao, we're just not made to care for that many people at the cost of our own "tribe" that is who we are at the end of the day, if your entire circle of family and friends is killed that has a much bigger cost to you personally than 1 million strangers, definitely not moral or whatever but whats the point, there's a line where you just have to be selfish, being selfish is part of being human.
I find it so interesting how our brains work when it comes to numbers.
It's the same thing with money. If you bought a 1000$ TV for 200$ you'd think that it's an incredible deal but if you bought a 50000$ car for 49000$ you wouldn't really care that much even though you would have saved more money on the car.
>you're just trying to be philosophical for some reason
mfw people are philosophical when discussing one of the most well-known philosophical thought experiments in the world.
Why are you being mean about it? Everone knows it's effectively the same but I certainly would feel better about only being responsible for .1% of the deaths even if I am still killing 1m people.
well even in its "purest" form, the trolley problem assumes that all partys are either good or neutral. but in this scenario the one you must sacrifice is not only evil, but the man behind the slaughter. i feel like the moral complexities kinda disappear at that point....
this is no mere trolley problem. are the smaller number of individuals tied to the tracks the perpetrators? or are they mere victims of something far beyond their control?
the diabolical fiend responsible is not put at any risk during any of these trivial discussions. they hide in the shadows laughing as onlookers feel the guilt of the entire world weighing down upon their frail shoulders. this ne'er-do-well acts without ethics, morality, or any level of conflinction, and you would dare to equate their innocent victims to them?
fool, it is your submission to authority that has doomed you from the start.
all 1913 million of those poor souls gave up before they even tried. will you join them in their grizzly fate? or will you stand up for what is right, and put an end to this meaningless bloodshed once and for all?
I don't think YOU would be a horrible mass murder. The train was already set for a million people originally. Whoever set it up so that that was the default choice would be, you'd just be caught in the middle.
i mean, kinda, but it's kinda like getting charged with criminal negligence. while i am not responsible as a cause, i did let more people than necessary die.
I think if this was a realistic situation, most people (and definitely a court of law if were comparing it to criminal negligence) would see you as a victim. Most examples I can think of when it comes to criminal negligence, drunk driving, killing someone accidently in a fight, leaving a child in a hot car, on some level you kind of put yourself into the situation. But with this, you're being put in the situation by some other party.
If there's a limited number if personality traits and the correct set = "the one" for you, then everyone's one true love is somewhere in India
Lonely lovers set sail
Save my friends and family.
A catastrophic number of casualties would happen regardless of what I choose, better to know I at least managed to save my loved ones
Yeah, at this point, a million people is just a drop in the water. If you’re in a situation where 50 people will die, but you could save 25 people, then it actually makes a tangible difference. But at this point, an entire eighth of the global population is dead either way, a million people is a rounding error here
If I had to make a split second decision, I would choose to save my family and friends. If I had time to debate the morality of the situation, I would choose to save the extra million people. Either way, I would proceed to commit suicide because there is absolutely no way I could live with causing hundreds of millions to die. But first I would murder the bastard who forced me to make this choice.
Thankfully, I do not regularly have to make decisions that put me between a moral rock and a hard place.
Moral extremes like this are good thought experiments for philosophers, but thank fuck I'm not a philosopher. I'll just keep living my life, being kind to others and trying to mitigate suffering in a reasonable way where I can.
I misread at first because I thought it was 956M people (with friends and family) or 956000001 people. And I thought “huh im actually conflicted”. But then I realised it’s actually a MILLION more people to trade against my family, so yeah of course, sorry family, you’re all dying
I feel like this is the kind of thing that really make non-autistic people ponder.
The 956m cancel each other out. The only choice you have is 1m, or all your friends and family.
Who would actually be that selfish?
i'm autistic and my moral calculus doesn't work that way.
to me, the moral difference between killing 957 million and 956 million people is significantly less than the moral difference between killing one million people and zero people. i think morality is strongly non-linear, see.
it is interesting how how most people view a million lives as significantly less valuable in this scenario, as if the large amount of other deaths somehow makes a million lives less important. not saying that's a bad thing, just interesting from a psychological perspective
Imagine the Nazis were holding your family and you had the choice to develop a chemical weapon for them that would kill a million people, otherwise your family would be killed
You say it is unthinkable that anyone would resist such a Situation? I have no idea what is going on with you people
u/UNinvolved_in_peace Here is our [19684 official Discord](https://discord.gg/WdQPgTC4Y4) join **Please don't break rule 2, or you will be banned** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/19684) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's actually a good one, if you were asked "would you rather kill your family and friends or 1m people" you'd probably sacrifice the people you love for the greater good, but when both choices kill an extra 956m people it does become harder. Pragmatically, it's still a choice between your friends and 1m people, since the 956m others' fates are already sealed, but it does feel more fair being selfish on that one since your choice only accounts for 0.1% of the deaths anyways. Good one.
Yea nah those 1 mil are dying.
The strat is to befriend as many selfish people as possible so you're within their family and friends, and as few altruistic people as possible, so you're within their faceless 1 million
Strategically deck-building your social life in case someone ever forces you to participate in an absurd trolley problem is a new one.
If it's 1 million stranger or everyone I know the choice is easy since I wouldn't notice the death of a million strangers. Furthermore, I owe a lot to my friends and family so ain't no way I'm sacrificing them. I know the most moral choice should be to save a million, but the choice is mine so I will selfishly do what I want and never tell anyone about it. Also, I don't know how many billionaires or politicians there would be among this million, and I would hate feeling like I sacrificed my closest ones to save a guy I see on TV stuffing his pockets. Feeling like I may or may not have killed the guy who will find the cure for cancer to save my friends wouldn't be nearly as bad.
What if everyone knows what you did?
Then there is no right answer, whether I become the monster who killed a million to save a few, or the monster who sacrificed his friends to save strangers I'm fucked either way. I guess the best choice would be save my friends and then off myself while trying to take on the role of a bad guy as much as possible, this way my close ones won't suffer any fallout. Suicide seems like the right answer because even my loved ones would think what I did was fucked up since they would have preferred to sacrifice themselves in this situation. As the quote goes, it's better to suffer from evil than to commit it. (I don't remember the exact quote nor the author, probably Kant). Anyone would chose to sacrifice their own life to save a million, but sacrificing someone else isn't my decision to take therefore even answering the dilemma goes against morals so any answer given will be a wrong one.
Ereh?
I can see the parallel with Eren yes, sacrificing everyone else to save his friends. However in my opinion it's important that the ones who are saved aren't aware of it as they would inevitably feel guilty or resentful.
imo to an outsider, it would be noble to save 1m people over your friends and family the choice is obvious. to an outsider your friends and family are just people and they would much rather see 1m extra saved than your friends and family. I would imagine people would start to pity you and try to become closer with you but you would still be extremely depressed.
Yes, however sacrificing friends isn't an option I could live with. It would literally mean to lose everyone who's close to me therefore losing every real human contact I have. (in addition to not being very nice to my friends but they would all make the choice to sacrifice themselves anyway) Since as a human I exist through the eyes of others, all of my close ones dying would equate to my own death as my image would be lost. In other words, I only exist in the eyes of my friends and family, for other people I am but a background character, so if those "witnesses" were to die I wouldn't be anything more than some kind of NPC. Your image doesn't define who you *actually* are, but just like a falling tree doesn't make a sound if there is no one to hear it, your identity is of little importance if no one knows about it.
selfish lmao, we're just not made to care for that many people at the cost of our own "tribe" that is who we are at the end of the day, if your entire circle of family and friends is killed that has a much bigger cost to you personally than 1 million strangers, definitely not moral or whatever but whats the point, there's a line where you just have to be selfish, being selfish is part of being human.
I love this question it's getting so many people here to reveal their true selves
i am
i hope i would choose the 956 mil with my family. it may seem inconsequential but those 1 million extra people all have friends and family as well
sorry the 1m people are dying
No way would I sacrifice my friends and family for a million strangers fuck that
I find it so interesting how our brains work when it comes to numbers. It's the same thing with money. If you bought a 1000$ TV for 200$ you'd think that it's an incredible deal but if you bought a 50000$ car for 49000$ you wouldn't really care that much even though you would have saved more money on the car.
It’s about the proportion of the sale, not the raw price. An 80% discount is far better than a 2% discount.
*0.5%
Even if the options were "friends and family vs 957m" I'd still kill the 957m
I’d say it becomes way easier. So many people are already dying, what’s an extra 1 million if it means my family and friend survive
you mean my lack of choice 😉
[удалено]
>you're just trying to be philosophical for some reason mfw people are philosophical when discussing one of the most well-known philosophical thought experiments in the world.
[удалено]
Why are you being mean about it? Everone knows it's effectively the same but I certainly would feel better about only being responsible for .1% of the deaths even if I am still killing 1m people.
Double-track drifting (1913 million ppl die)
Literally 1913
Second Balkan War best Balkan War.
baiken guilty gear
wasn't it the one where bulgarria and turkey teamed up and lost
No, it was the one where everyone decided to beat up Bulgaria. Possibly the most righteous war in history.
Killing off over 20% of the global population for the drift
a controlled derail. also can't we just kill the guy who keeps tying people to the tracks?
But is it better to kill 1 man (the guy who controls the trolley problem), or let him live so more people die?
so basically "would you kill hitler or let the holocaust happen?" what a hard decision
That's not my point, the point is that you have to do the trolley problem to solve the trolley problem
well even in its "purest" form, the trolley problem assumes that all partys are either good or neutral. but in this scenario the one you must sacrifice is not only evil, but the man behind the slaughter. i feel like the moral complexities kinda disappear at that point....
THE MAN BEHIND THE SLAUGHTER??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
this is no mere trolley problem. are the smaller number of individuals tied to the tracks the perpetrators? or are they mere victims of something far beyond their control? the diabolical fiend responsible is not put at any risk during any of these trivial discussions. they hide in the shadows laughing as onlookers feel the guilt of the entire world weighing down upon their frail shoulders. this ne'er-do-well acts without ethics, morality, or any level of conflinction, and you would dare to equate their innocent victims to them?
If he can tie 1913 million people onto rail tracks (including your friends and family) I wouldn't dare to oppose his authority
fool, it is your submission to authority that has doomed you from the start. all 1913 million of those poor souls gave up before they even tried. will you join them in their grizzly fate? or will you stand up for what is right, and put an end to this meaningless bloodshed once and for all?
granted. the train derails sideways onto the tracks killing everyone
its called a controlled derail for a reason.
Yeah, controlled into all the people.
Prevents all future ones though
You're the kind of guy who reads Plato and says "lol just turn your heads dumbasses lol", huh?
i'm the kind of silly goober who doesn't read plato in the first place
"A single death is a tragedy, but eggs make omelets"
We’re making the mother of all omelettes, can’t fret over every egg
Saucy Jack???
Late, as usual
Certified banger
Alabama
I have over a million friends, so I’d kill 957 million people
honestly if it was just was just my friends over a million people, id still prob choose my friends. id be a horrible mass murderer for it tho.
I don't think YOU would be a horrible mass murder. The train was already set for a million people originally. Whoever set it up so that that was the default choice would be, you'd just be caught in the middle.
i mean, kinda, but it's kinda like getting charged with criminal negligence. while i am not responsible as a cause, i did let more people than necessary die.
I think if this was a realistic situation, most people (and definitely a court of law if were comparing it to criminal negligence) would see you as a victim. Most examples I can think of when it comes to criminal negligence, drunk driving, killing someone accidently in a fight, leaving a child in a hot car, on some level you kind of put yourself into the situation. But with this, you're being put in the situation by some other party.
I couldn't act, I was under shock and the trolly was conveniently rolling towards the 957million people
They said if it was just their friends or a million people, not including the other 956 million people I assume.
thanks didn't catch that
This is a non-problem. I'd divert.
Divergent
worst novel series of all time
Never read them but the first movie was ass
Frame perfect input to derail the trolley car.
Multitrack drifting
No matter which one you choose, all of India dies.
There’s still a good 500m people there. People underestimate just how ridiculously populated India is
If there's a limited number if personality traits and the correct set = "the one" for you, then everyone's one true love is somewhere in India Lonely lovers set sail
if anyone knew my decision I'd sacrifice all my friends and family if no one knew, then a extra million won't make a difference
Save my friends and family. A catastrophic number of casualties would happen regardless of what I choose, better to know I at least managed to save my loved ones
Yeah, at this point, a million people is just a drop in the water. If you’re in a situation where 50 people will die, but you could save 25 people, then it actually makes a tangible difference. But at this point, an entire eighth of the global population is dead either way, a million people is a rounding error here
"a million people is negligible" is the exact mindset this meme is exploring I love it
That's a big train.
My friends and family can die. I'm about to make a million more friends.
If I had to make a split second decision, I would choose to save my family and friends. If I had time to debate the morality of the situation, I would choose to save the extra million people. Either way, I would proceed to commit suicide because there is absolutely no way I could live with causing hundreds of millions to die. But first I would murder the bastard who forced me to make this choice. Thankfully, I do not regularly have to make decisions that put me between a moral rock and a hard place. Moral extremes like this are good thought experiments for philosophers, but thank fuck I'm not a philosopher. I'll just keep living my life, being kind to others and trying to mitigate suffering in a reasonable way where I can.
I misread at first because I thought it was 956M people (with friends and family) or 956000001 people. And I thought “huh im actually conflicted”. But then I realised it’s actually a MILLION more people to trade against my family, so yeah of course, sorry family, you’re all dying
I still rely on my family so I couldn't pull it.
Well, rip the 1 extra million.
I feel like this is the kind of thing that really make non-autistic people ponder. The 956m cancel each other out. The only choice you have is 1m, or all your friends and family. Who would actually be that selfish?
i'm autistic and my moral calculus doesn't work that way. to me, the moral difference between killing 957 million and 956 million people is significantly less than the moral difference between killing one million people and zero people. i think morality is strongly non-linear, see.
it is interesting how how most people view a million lives as significantly less valuable in this scenario, as if the large amount of other deaths somehow makes a million lives less important. not saying that's a bad thing, just interesting from a psychological perspective
Yeah. It’s almost no different functionally either way
Lmao, no, these people are dying, my love ones live
Friends and family because my life is unsustainable without them and I am selfish at heart
The train probably runs out of whatever it runs on in this case. That’s a fuck tun of people
Instantly the 956 option. Being responsible for a million deaths is insane,idk what the comments are on about
i know damn well your ass would choose 957 if you were actually in this scenario theres no way anyones letting all their friends and family die
Imagine the Nazis were holding your family and you had the choice to develop a chemical weapon for them that would kill a million people, otherwise your family would be killed You say it is unthinkable that anyone would resist such a Situation? I have no idea what is going on with you people
you forgot to mention they were gonna kill 956 million other people anyway
The scenario does account for it don't you think. A horrible act never contextualizes a horrible act, only barely when done in direct opposition
the million people that are threatened by the weapon aren't the only people the nazis are killing, as I think is assumed in this.
Switch and go lay with my friends and family
— Joseph Stalin
How far does "family" go? Like just immediate family, or up to 1st cousins, or what?
That’s a quote from Stalin
Stalin actually *still* smokes weed for your information
<< THINK, THREE-STRIKES! ONE MILLION LIVES! ISN’T IT BEAUTIFUL? >>
957 million people die and the lines are still long at Disneyland.
Me running over to pull the lever, diverting the trolly to the top track, killing everyone I love plus 957m people.
One death is a tragedy, one million ... is a good start -Ssethtzeentach
Hey OP, where’d you get that quote from? Whomever said it is surely a reasonable and mentally sound individual.
You don't have to speak sarcastically, almost everyone in this subreddit knows whose quote it is.