This is a question I thought of years ago that I like to ask people.
Assume that one day as you are getting ready to start your day, you suddenly find yourself out of time and in a sort of orbit above the earth. Standing, (or floating as the case might be) is a being who for all demonstrable purposes can be referred to as “god”. “God” demonstrates his/her/it’s abilities to your satisfaction that it indeed possesses the powers it claims. God then tells you that it has a problem, but because it isn’t allowed to directly interfere with the future that it will present a choice to you. It turns out that without immediate intervention, the future of the human species is going to be pretty slim. Happily, there is a solution. If you so choose, 1/3 of the planet’s population, as well as it’s effects on the environment will be eliminated. It is explained to you that said affected persons and property will simply disappear and revert to a natural state. The affected regions will be contiguous in nature, but spread out over the entirety of all inhabited landmasses. So you won’t have patches within cities, but whole towns will poof away. God explains that you will not be held accountable for your choice in anyway whatsoever by human authorities. He cannot assure you that anyone in particular will be spared, it is up to random chance. You, yourself, as the decider of fate will of course be given immunity from the affect. By so choosing, you will ensure the survival of the species for the next 5000 years with a near 100% chance of success.
Why is God asking ME to make decisions that are His responsibility?
This is His moral quandry, not mine. Say a judge goes home one night and asked his ten-year-old son whether he should order the execution of a murderer or not. Is the son responsible for what the judge does in court the next day?
Absolutely not. The judge is a moral actor too and as the person with the actual power, his choice is the only one that matters.
I would refuse to answer and remind “God” that with great power comes great responsibility and he should suck it down and do his own dirty work.
Given the parameters of the scenario, of course you kill 1/3 of the population. To choose otherwise is practically (and therefore morally) equivalent to killing 3/3. Seems quite selfish to sacrifice over 4 billion people so your hands can stay clean.
Eh…for the survival of the species? No, I wouldn’t. I’m not entirely certain our continued existence (as an aggregate) is a good thing.
If doing so would eliminate pollution, hunger, poverty and reality television for the surviving 2/3rd? Yeah, I probably would. Within 90 years, those individuals would be dead anyway, and I don’t get particularly caught up in the tragedy of others unless I’ve reason to connect with them personally.
But, like **VarlosZ **points out, this really depends on what “future of the human species” means. Does this mean within the lifetime of those currently living humans will all die? 'Cause in that case, he’s right - you’re not condemning 1/3, you’re saving 2/3.
I’ll narrow this down. “God” is simply a term used for the being that is taking an interest in the preservation of the species. I used the term because it’s powers are sufficiently advanced enough and in enough quantity that it would be considered such by most definitions. It does not claim to be any deity. It is not allowed to act directly and apparently is constrained by certain rules that are beyond human understanding. You may choose as you see fit, but you have no reason to assume it is lying to you. It makes no promises on the quality of life that the preserved earth with provide, only that by doing so you will avert the near certain destruction of the species.
The being informs you that all current projections indicate the total extinction of the human race within 500 years. I should also note that you can of course choose not to choose, but the being will go to the next “fit representative of the species” and that once a decision is reached it will be considered binding.
>Given the parameters of the scenario, of course you kill 1/3 of the population. To choose otherwise is practically (and therefore morally) equivalent to killing 3/3. Seems quite selfish to sacrifice over 4 billion people so your hands can stay clean.
I agree.
But the entire hypothetical situation so strains credulity that answering it is almost an empty gesture. For one thing, I have a hard time imagining I would believe I was making such a choice, though I am sure I could do so on a provisional basis - “Well, OK, if those are my choices, I choose the 1/3 option” - and be sincere in selecing that option.
I was going to post this almost word-for-word. In fact, I frequently fantasize about exactly who among the world’s population I’d kill and in what order.