In my current situation (ok economically but not without worries), wouldn’t fucking take a million, nor a billion for that matter. It is not like all my consumption habits are %100 devoid of someone else’s suffering or maybe even death, indirectly. But having a vague idea about bad effects of consumption habits vs knowing it will be a direct cause of death is two completely different things imo. On the otherhand if my life or a loved one’s life depends on that money, that is a harder question and I don’t think I can really know the answer without going through it and deciding.
Ok now lets do billionaires but 100mil and ten thousand people in a far away country dies.
I think a billion id take because you can save thousands and thousands of people
I could live with that choice. Maybe in the end I’d feel so guilty that I wouldn’t even use the money for myself at all.
Which is an interesting debate as well. How does your answer change if you can’t use that money for you or known people at all, and only “for good”. Do you feel less guilty?
As another commenter said it’s just a different version of the trolley problem
Yeah I thought about that but you can not trade one person’s life for a thousand others unless that person willingly participates.
By logic this should also extend to me and my loved ones but ofcourse when it is someone closer to you whose life may be saved, you can probably no longer act objectively.
Yeah but I think there is a difference between the two, it is a more direct consequence of your decision only, not society on a whole. I would imagine shared guilt of indirect results is much lighter on the psychology than a direct and visible consequence of what comes out of one’s mouth. There is ofcourse alot of grey region scenarios in between (like you won’t know who dies, or death will be of natural causes but immediate etc).
In my current situation (ok economically but not without worries), wouldn’t fucking take a million, nor a billion for that matter. It is not like all my consumption habits are %100 devoid of someone else’s suffering or maybe even death, indirectly. But having a vague idea about bad effects of consumption habits vs knowing it will be a direct cause of death is two completely different things imo. On the otherhand if my life or a loved one’s life depends on that money, that is a harder question and I don’t think I can really know the answer without going through it and deciding.
Ok now lets do billionaires but 100mil and ten thousand people in a far away country dies.
I think a billion id take because you can save thousands and thousands of people
I could live with that choice. Maybe in the end I’d feel so guilty that I wouldn’t even use the money for myself at all.
Which is an interesting debate as well. How does your answer change if you can’t use that money for you or known people at all, and only “for good”. Do you feel less guilty?
As another commenter said it’s just a different version of the trolley problem
Yeah I thought about that but you can not trade one person’s life for a thousand others unless that person willingly participates.
By logic this should also extend to me and my loved ones but ofcourse when it is someone closer to you whose life may be saved, you can probably no longer act objectively.
I don’t think that’s entirely true
Everyday society chooses to save a persons life and not another’s
Not explicitly but not so indirectly either
Yeah but I think there is a difference between the two, it is a more direct consequence of your decision only, not society on a whole. I would imagine shared guilt of indirect results is much lighter on the psychology than a direct and visible consequence of what comes out of one’s mouth. There is ofcourse alot of grey region scenarios in between (like you won’t know who dies, or death will be of natural causes but immediate etc).