Man, if I could exempt Celtling I’d take that plan in a heartbeat. Get rid of the whole steaming, writhing, putrid pile of dysfunction at one go?!? Amen, brotha, have at 'em!
. . . Well, not really. . .
But if you’ve got an hour to waste, ask me how the Family Reunion plans are coming along. . . :smack:
Pft. Odin could have given me 10,000 for just my husband and I’d take that, too. I make the same choice of my enjoyment over others’ survival time I buy a latte over sending money to starving kids in Africa, as does everyone in a first world country with a well-above average use if resources. I’m just not kidding myself about it.
Under the prisoner’s dilemma variant, the people I care most about in this world would have roughly a 1 in 70 chance of dying if I pick the strangers to die, and a 1 in 1 chance of dying if I pick them to die. I’d still choose to have the 100 survive, even knowing that 100 million people will die if everyone chooses the same way I do.
There’s no way I could choose the certain death of those I care most about.
Where it would really get interesting would be if you added positive adjectives to the strangers’ case. The 10,000 most compassionate people in the world today? The 10,000 smartest? The 10,000 with most future potential?
That IS an interesting variant! My answer remains the same, but it actually took a bit more thought.
If the 100 does not include my wife, I will probably sacrifice the lesser number for the greater.
If I had to choose between my wife alone and a great number of strangers, it probably depends on whether she knew about the choice.
Odin won’t tell you who is on the list until you make your decision, as you probably already suspected.
I won’t do anything, for any reason, that will harm my wife (absenting things that are better for her in the long run, like consenting to surgery she needs to survive even though it will cause her some immediate pain).
Too little information to answer, then. 1,000,000 random people dead in my city would break it, that’s something like half the total population. 1,000,000 random people scattered evenly over the world wouldn’t even ping the meter.
Well, then he can take the strangers. That way Celtling is 100% safe.
Bolding my own quote.
How does Odin answer my question?
Everyone has relatives, even if they don’t know them. I imagine Odin offs a bunch of distant rellies you don’t even know you have.
Who knows-maybe he’ll pick pick out some of your internet acquaintances?
If so…I don’t know you and I don’t like you. 
I would easily choose the 10,000 strangers to die over the 100 family/friends. But if I could substitute just myself to die, I’d choose that over either group.
Is that weird? I think including the third “sacrifice yourself instead” option would make the question more interesting. Because, for me, it would almost always be the “100 friends/family get to live” over almost any amount of strangers. But how many strangers would you sacrifice yourself for? That’s a much more difficult question for me to answer, but I would certainly do it for 10,000.
I’d tell Odin to kill the 10,000 strangers, then ask for further displays of his power, all to eventually trap him in a paradox in which I take his place.
And the last words you hear will be, “How well does anyone really know themselves, smartass?”
I don’t get the reference, but I figure the only real value in hypotheticals like this is in gaming them.
Physics 101 answer:
(You know, frictionless—in a complete vacuum…)
100 friends and family are sacrificed. I would be one of them. I arrived at this decision because I would die to spare 10,000 random strangers. There are only about 20 or so people I love dearly and I don’t think that I am more moral than them. So I think that that is what they would want. The opinions of the 80 or so other family members that I’m having to sacrifice don’t matter. As I understand the question, it takes all one hundred to save the 10,000, so effectively each life is saving the entire 10,000. It’s not like the sacrifice of each life is saving merely 100 other people, right? Because if that were the case, I might be inclined to save my 20 closest friends/family and sacrifice the other 80. I of course would be one of the 80.
My assumptions are that anyone being killed are aware that they are being killed and are being executed somewhat humanely. There is no torture involved.
If the results of the deaths are unknown and are carried out by what appears to be natural causes, then bye-bye to the 10,000. How would that be any different then what is happening daily anyway. (Aside from the fact that 10,000 extra people died this day)
Real (Fake) World answer:
If a godlike creature appeared to me and gave me this choice, I’d tell him to go fuck himself. Any being that would offer you such a choice is a psychopathic monster and can’t be trusted anyway. He’s probably just trying to find out who your 100 closest friends/family are so that he can torture them in front of you.
Other Real (fake) world answer:
Say that the choice is given to me because it turns out life is really a game that’s being monitored by a giant computer and I’ve drawn the It’s-your-100-friends/family-vs-10000-strangers card. I sacrifice myself along with 99 of my least favorite family members. It’s not fair that I’m sacrificing them but not my 20 closest people but it’s still more palatable than losing 10,000 others. (I’m fortunate enough to have a large family).
My family lives. I don’t bat an eyelash. It’d be the correct moral choice to make.
While we are talking morality, being willing to sacrifice those people who love you, who support you, who are closest to you, who make your life a life isn’t being more moral. It is less. In fact, it makes a mockery or morality and of your relationship with those people as you cannot possibly care about 10k people you’ve never met, who have no real impact on your life. It is just juvenile posturing to claim it, and moral bankruptcy if one were to actually carry it out.
Given that choice, 10k people are gonna die. I’d save my family and friends without hesitation.