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.

  • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
    7·
    1 year ago
    
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

(edit: removed utilitarian from description)
    • Kerfuffle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      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.comEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Fair, I suppose I meant highest utility for ME and my people. What would be the right way to describe it?

        • Kerfuffle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          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.

      • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
        7·
        1 year ago

        How am I being hypocritical? I won’t take from others, but I won’t give my life for strangers. How is that hypocritical?

      • Izzy@lemmy.world
        5·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know about hyprocritical, but it is rather selfish. Valuing human lives at zero just because you haven’t met them is quite extreme if you think about it. I don’t see how it is utilitarian either. Saving even 2 people at the cost of 1 is the most utilitarian thing to do.