Ethical dilemma

[Citizen James]

An ethical dillema (if anyone takes the question seriously)

What would you consider worse?

The death of about ten thousand people you don't know, along with severe injuries to several tens of thousands more, and minor to moderate injuries to over a hundred thousand more?

Serious maiming to yourself - loss of both legs and your right arm, total loss of sight in both eyes, loss of hearing in the right ear (which rings constantly), and near continuous pain.

I am curious to hear your reasoning...

[Alcon]

Ack, I misread the question and voted Option 2.

In any case, Option 1. I cannot imagine a different answer, really. If this question was one person, maybe I'd temporarily pause.

However, for what it's worth, Option 2 would probably affect my life more. However, if I had a choice, it would be Option 1 not happening.

[angus]

The self is at the center of the universe.  And the immediate family.  It must be.  And any member of the species who is so altruistically motivated to sense otherwise is destined to become a failure.  This is nature's way of culling the undesirables of the herd, and ensuring that the strongest and most selfish survive.  Ethics is a veneer of deceit imposed on the universe by the self-ordained most highly evolved species.  ("Hey, baby, I'm a nice guy.  Do me.")  And it is a thin veneer that flakes off pretty easily at the first sign of mortal danger. 

[Inverted Things]

The self is at the center of the universe.  And the immediate family.  It must be.  And any member of the species who is so altruistically motivated to sense otherwise is destined to become a failure.  This is nature's way of culling the undesirables of the herd, and ensuring that the strongest and most selfish survive.  Ethics is a veneer of deceit imposed on the universe by the self-ordained most highly evolved species.  ("Hey, baby, I'm a nice guy.  Do me.")  And it is a thin veneer that flakes off pretty easily at the first sign of mortal danger. 

Post of the day, week, and month. Almost literary, angus.

[Gabu]

Purely objectively speaking, option 1 is, well, the obvious choice.  If we take it as assumed that death and injury is bad, then it's obvious that more death and injury is worse than less death and injury, so ten thousand dead and many more injured is clearly worse than one injured.

If we incorporate the illogical self-centered human aspect, however, it gets much less obvious for one who must actually make the decision between the two.  Nobody wants to be maimed for life, and an awful lot of people would stop at nothing to prevent themselves from being maimed for life; in this fashion, the egotistical irrationality of a human's most primal instincts displays itself.  There are certainly a lot of people who would sacrifice themselves to save all those other people, and I salute them, as, while I would like to believe that I would be among them, it's really impossible to know until you actually have to make that decision.

[opebo]

I can think of whole nations, ethnic groups, and definitely religions I would rather lose than my pinky finger.

Come to think of it there are a few of the latter I would give up my pinky to get rid of!

By the way, does everyone say 'pinky'.  It sounds silly to me all of a sudden.

[angus]

sometimes people say "little finger"

try that for a while and see if you feel better.

[Jake]

I'd rather thousands die than lose my sight or my arms. Maybe my hearing or legs, definitely not my sight or arms.

[John Dibble]

The self is at the center of the universe.  And the immediate family.  It must be.  And any member of the species who is so altruistically motivated to sense otherwise is destined to become a failure.  This is nature's way of culling the undesirables of the herd, and ensuring that the strongest and most selfish survive.  Ethics is a veneer of deceit imposed on the universe by the self-ordained most highly evolved species.  ("Hey, baby, I'm a nice guy.  Do me.")  And it is a thin veneer that flakes off pretty easily at the first sign of mortal danger. 

LOL! So true. Many here might answer that they'd take the maiming, but if you were in reality given this choice, you might choose differently.

[David S]

The self is at the center of the universe.  And the immediate family.  It must be.  And any member of the species who is so altruistically motivated to sense otherwise is destined to become a failure.  This is nature's way of culling the undesirables of the herd, and ensuring that the strongest and most selfish survive.  Ethics is a veneer of deceit imposed on the universe by the self-ordained most highly evolved species.  ("Hey, baby, I'm a nice guy.  Do me.")  And it is a thin veneer that flakes off pretty easily at the first sign of mortal danger. 

There is a lot to be said for Angus' comment, but on the other hand many good men have given up their lives for others, 10,000 on D-day alone.

[John Dibble]

The self is at the center of the universe.  And the immediate family.  It must be.  And any member of the species who is so altruistically motivated to sense otherwise is destined to become a failure.  This is nature's way of culling the undesirables of the herd, and ensuring that the strongest and most selfish survive.  Ethics is a veneer of deceit imposed on the universe by the self-ordained most highly evolved species.  ("Hey, baby, I'm a nice guy.  Do me.")  And it is a thin veneer that flakes off pretty easily at the first sign of mortal danger. 

There is a lot to be said for Angus' comment, but on the other hand many good men have given up their lives for others, 10,000 on D-day alone.

That's true - but you have to wonder about one thing. How many of them actually expected to die in the battle? Not many, I would think - it's hard to wage a war if your troops expect to die, unless they believe there's some sort of reward waiting on the other side for dying in battle.(like honor for the Japanese in WWII or Muslims who think they'll get a bunch of virgins in heaven)

[patrick1]

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.  John 15:12

I feel it is our duty to help our fellow man and exhibit our love of mankind.  Physical suffering is temporary.

[John Dibble]

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.  John 15:12

Of course, more of us would be likely to make sacrifices for people we know - our friends, family, neighbors and whatnot are important to us. The thing is though, we wouldn't necessarily be willing to make the same sacrifices for people we don't know at all - they wouldn't hold the same meaning to us. If you hear about 100 people dying in a plane crash, you'll basically shake your head and go 'that sucks, but oh well', but if just one close friend dies you'll be far more shaken up.

[ATFFL]

For a few shining moments, I would be a communist.  All those other people need to share the pain.

[minionofmidas]

Can we have just a slightly less complete maiming? So that I can feel certain I'm no liar? Because I voted that I'd take the maiming. I can spare one arm. Or both legs. And sight or hearing. But not more.

[angus]

The self is at the center of the universe.  And the immediate family.  It must be.  And any member of the species who is so altruistically motivated to sense otherwise is destined to become a failure.  This is nature's way of culling the undesirables of the herd, and ensuring that the strongest and most selfish survive.  Ethics is a veneer of deceit imposed on the universe by the self-ordained most highly evolved species.  ("Hey, baby, I'm a nice guy.  Do me.")  And it is a thin veneer that flakes off pretty easily at the first sign of mortal danger. 

There is a lot to be said for Angus' comment, but on the other hand many good men have given up their lives for others, 10,000 on D-day alone.

The nature of sensitivity is to put yourself in another's place, or to think of how one's actions and words may be otherwise construed.  I have a tendency not to do that.  I certainly didn't mean to ignore the bravery of the defenders of the USA, France, England, or, quite frankly, those against whom they waged war, whose efforts were no less remarkable in their own defense of their fatherland.  You made a good point.  A good counterpoint.  I do think many did know that this would be their last day.  I think the sargeants and officers were clear about that.  But I also think they may have been fighting for the freedom of their families' as much as they were fighting over some abstract notion.  Maybe even more so.

[Inverted Things]

For a few shining moments, I would be a communist.  All those other people need to share the pain.

Hah! That's great

[Hitchabrut]

Option 1.

[J. J.]

Option 1, I'm already deformed.

[Beet]

Depends if you mean an actual choice versus the pure psychological impact. There's a big difference.