Yeah, there are any number of permutations that could have made this a lot harder to decide. How about, take a one year separation from your loved ones to save 10,000 people? Five years? 10 years? It would be more interesting to get at what kinds of personal sacrifices people would make to save complete strangers.
When I first saw this question a few days again, I thought the choice was having the person closest to me die in place of the 10,000. Simply never getting to see them again? No brainer. Live on 10,000. You are welcome.
Yes, I realize that. I’m still standing by my answer.
Well, not simply never getting to see them again. There is the added stab of having them hate you, thinking you have betrayed them. I couldn’t do it. My daughter thinking I betrayed her? Can’t do it. My husband, I think I could do it. This is a difficult question!
Eh, I betray people every day. Big whup.
haha that was more like a little bit of extra added on reasoning. Obviously I’d be doing it out of my love for the 10,000 cancer patients.
But, accepting the reality that most relationships end, no matter how much you may love someone, does not make what I feel any less than what someone who naively believes that their relationship is THE ONE THAT IS GOING TO LAST FOREVER ™ feels. That is to say, believing that your love is going to be with you forever does not mean anything other than that you are optimistic, and not very realistic. Just because I accept the fact that things usually don’t work out forever doesn’t mean I love him any less than anybody loves their mates.
Wow. This is harsh. What makes you think this decision is made coldly? On the contrary, even people who value their personal relationship more than the certain fate of strangers they did no harm to can feel sympathy for people afflicted with a terminal illness.
Huh. If my wife thought I’d betrayed her she’d take the kids with her. They’d grow up thinking their father was a deceiving prick. And meanwhile, now knowing Mephistopheles exists, I’d also be pretty sure God exists, and that the real temptation offered by Mephistopheles is to interfere with the ongoing course of whatever He set into motion.
Are you fucking kidding me? I don’t even see this as a difficult choice.
As I implied in post 148, I find it amusing that everyone thinks they are outsmarting Satan by saying “no”. “No” is the obvious answer, given the basic selfishness of people. Trust me, Satan would have thought of that.
First, it’s Satan. he’s not nice.
But yeah, this thread is really surprising me and pissing me off. I’m basically hoping that people are answering the way they do because it’s a silly hypo involving supernatural beings that don’t really exist. I choose to believe that most people here really wouldn’t refuse to save 10,000 human beings just so they wouldn’t have to live alone for awhile.
I’m an atheist, I don’t believe in Satan, so my answer has nothing to do with the messenger. It has everything to do with the idea of actively making a choice that would ruin the lives of my husband and daughter (not to mention my own) without their consent or participation.
The way I see it is this: everyone dies and I don’t make those choices. Some people end up dying truly horrifying deaths. Cancer sucks and I have a great deal of sympathy for the ill and aversion to suffering in general, but I’m not going to actively contribute to the mental anguish of those that I love to relieve physical suffering that I had no control over to begin with. What’s the point? Those 10,000 people get to live now only to die later in what could perhaps be even more distressing ways (or spend their lives suffering or, worse, contributing to the suffering of others) and some other 10,000 people die of cancer?
Life is short. Don’t hurt people. Everyone has value, but it’s not in every way equal. You can’t “save the world” but you can have worthwhile impacts on the lives around you. Take care of your family because ultimately they are the ones who (should) care most about you.
I’d have to go against the consensus and say yes.
The most painful part of the decision, for me, is definitely the proximity to the nine-year-old’s answer. Junior is wrong about every god damn thing, I don’t know that I could live with myself after even a shadow of agreement. I’d probably have to eat a bullet in shame from the association, and also in loneliness. But mostly shame.
nm, I no read gud.
Given that the one I love most would be a child of mine (actually 2 kids, what does Satan do in the case of a tie?), and I have a responsibility to them, my answer would be a definite no.
Still a no brainer. The love of my life hates me because they think I betrayed him/her. Hell, I WOULD betray him/her to save 10,000 people. My mental conflict is whether or not I would kill the love of my life to save 10,000 people. (If I couldn’t sacrifice myself instead). I really don’t know the answer to that and am very grateful that I will never be in that position.
Except in this case you do. That’s what makes it a difficult choice; you can save them, you do make the choice.
Again, the point of the hypothetical is that you do control it. And I like how you seem to assume that the people that are dying are only suffering physically, not like the mental anguish of having a parent betray you. No they’re just dying, after all, just a little physical suffering. Not to mention the mental anguish of their family’s.
What if your family goes on to suffer horribly? What if they die a terrible death later? By your logic we should just kill them and everybody because, hey, it might be worse for them if we don’t, and they might make other people suffer.
You are choosing to hurt people, though; about 10 000 of them. More, if you count their family’s. You say you don’t want to hurt your family, but you’re willing to hurt theirs. And again, in the scenario you can save the world, or at least the lives of 10 000 people. Finally, I like to believe that what I do is dictated not only by what is best for me, but what is best for others. And in the absence of the devil in this scenario, what’s best for others, even if you include my family, is to save the 10 000. Then again, like Huangdi, perhaps I’m unqualified to answer because of my age and because I’ve never loved somebody in a romantic sense. Regardless, I’d like to think I’d save the 10 000.
Sorry for the long post, but the thread has been an incredible let-down to me from many people that I really respected, both intellectually and morally (at least as much as is possible over the internet). And absent the don’t make deals with the devil excuse, I can’t see any reason that’s not incredibly selfish to not choose the 10 000.
Nope. I don’t. I can’t save them. They will die anyway. Maybe not today, maybe not by cancer. But they will die. Maybe more peacefully, maybe more violently. Saving them one day is the epitome of futility and in the process I get to proactively ruin the lives of at least two people whom I care about and love deeply. I’m having trouble seeing an upside here.
Nope, I don’t control it. I wasn’t responsible for their terminal disease. I don’t assume anything. I understand that the terminal 10,000 are suffering. How they suffer is immaterial. People suffer everyday and I do nothing to save them. All over the world and in my own town, but what do I do? I go to work, I come home, I take care of my family. It’s all I have. Why would I turn on the very people who are my world and I theirs for the temporary well-being of complete strangers? Why would I sacrifice my family’s well-being and happiness for the lives of strangers? Why am I responsible for the mental anguish of families that lose a loved one to cancer. Cancer. Not me blowing up a building or parking my car on the train tracks. Cancer. How the heck do I know they didn’t smoke themselves into an early grave? What difference does it make anyway? It’s not my fault, nor my responsibility. Life is finite.
Well, that would be terrible, but as long as it’s not my fault, I won’t feel guilt about it. At least I can hope that I gave them the best I could give them. My logic doesn’t justify killing anyone. My logic allows you to let nature take it’s course and avoid creating pain for people you love.
Sorry, but I’m not hurting anyone. The cancer is hurting those 10,000 people. I’m not willing to hurt anyone’s family, least of all my own. In this scenario, you can allow 10,000 people to cheat death once. Nothing more. You don’t change anything really.* If that makes you feel better about yourself, whatever works for you. I answered honestly that I regard my family to be the most important people in the world.
Maybe it’s because you’ve never been responsible for another human being. As a wife, I am trusted with a commitment both he and I take deadly seriously. I know my husband well enough to know that my betrayal would be utterly devastating for him. It would be highly unlikely he would ever trust anyone enough to find another fulfilling relationship. Also, I have no intention of leaving my daughter without two loving parents. I already screwed that up for my son and I’m not going to make that mistake more than once. I owe it to her to give her the best I’ve got.
And hell, I’ve been through enough in my life as to deserve the meager happiness that I have courtesy of a family who cares about me. I think I’ve worked hard enough on this marriage to have earned it. I have sacrificed a great deal to get this. I’m not a perfect person, but damn it I’ve got feelings too. I couldn’t care less if you think that’s selfish. I’m not about to just toss it aside as if it were nothing to me.
Sorry if my commitment to my familial relationships doesn’t meet with your moral standards.
In cold blood I wouldn’t even shoot Stalin for that.
Of course, sleeping would therefore become optional for me.
I was surprised too. I simply don’t understand that degree of selfishness. So many people and families suffering and dying to prevent a loved one’s emotional pain.
I can speak for myself and say I am responsible for family members as well. However, I am also a person that is a very small part of a whole. Those 10,000 people and their lives and offspring are worth much more than my five. I believe Spock said it best:
“logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” (I love that line 
I could not live with myself knowing that I could save so many people and yet, decided to be selfish. Not even by allowing them to keep on living, but simply allowing them to keep feeling good about me?