Is 10,000 people suffering identically equal bad as one of them?
October 29, 2010 at 12:41 pm
(This post was last modified: October 29, 2010 at 1:15 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
This came from an argument with Shinylight and Adrian in the chat line. They both insist that it's blatantly obvious that more people suffering is worse even when every individual's suffering is absolutely identical. I was going to do a poll but it's pointless because I'm obviously not on the side of popularity but that is irrelevant to argument.
Apparently, 10,000 people suffering absolutely identically to any one of them is 'worse' than one of those identical person's suffering because it matters more in the 'big picture'. I say that it obviously doesn't matter and there is no 'big picture' because only individual's suffer so when you add up the suffering of many individuals you pretend that such a big picture actually exists when it doesn't. It equates to pretending that all the suffering of many different people can be treated as if it was all in the same organism.
I'm sure we all agree that we are not a mass organism. But clearly Adrian and Shiny don't seem to see how adding up suffering of many is treating individuals as if they were a mass organism. If this is not what this so called 'big picture' is about then I don't know it is!
My philosophy is that those who suffer worse should be prioritized obviously.... but those who suffer equally feel all the same amount and people only feel their own individual pain. So it makes no sense to pretend they add up.
People who suffer worse don't add up with those who suffer less bad either.... they are merely prioritized because suffering worse is... worse.
Why add up people's suffering? And why do we intuitively do this? I don't think we should add up people's suffering because it makes no sense for reasons given and I think we add people's suffering up for political reasons and because we don't realize we are actually treating each other as a mass organism when we are.
Adrian suggested how we should add them up for the same reason that we add up any value like 10 Ferraris rather than 1 for instance. But people already do value those things and it makes sense economically. That is a descriptive matter, that is not about why we morally should value something. And what I'm saying is why should we value many individuals more than one if all those individuals are suffering absolutely identically? It makes no sense to me, as I've said, for reasons given.
To go a bit more into detail: In what I will call alternative reality 1 (AR1): If one person of the 10,000 suffering is saved it is not equally moral to all 10,000 being saved but only because there are still 9,999 individuals suffering, not because they add up, they don't.
In AR2(Alernative reality 2) if there is only 1 individual being tortured who is saved that is equally moral to all the 10,000 being saved in AR1 because in both cases all the equal individual pain in existence was eliminated.
Opinions and reasoning please.
EDIT: And another thought though too.... to approach it another way.... is 10,000 people who are equally happy better than one? I think not because everyone experiences exactly the same level of happiness as if it was just one of them.... so to act as if more is any 'better' is to pretend there is something extra here.
Apparently, 10,000 people suffering absolutely identically to any one of them is 'worse' than one of those identical person's suffering because it matters more in the 'big picture'. I say that it obviously doesn't matter and there is no 'big picture' because only individual's suffer so when you add up the suffering of many individuals you pretend that such a big picture actually exists when it doesn't. It equates to pretending that all the suffering of many different people can be treated as if it was all in the same organism.
I'm sure we all agree that we are not a mass organism. But clearly Adrian and Shiny don't seem to see how adding up suffering of many is treating individuals as if they were a mass organism. If this is not what this so called 'big picture' is about then I don't know it is!
My philosophy is that those who suffer worse should be prioritized obviously.... but those who suffer equally feel all the same amount and people only feel their own individual pain. So it makes no sense to pretend they add up.
People who suffer worse don't add up with those who suffer less bad either.... they are merely prioritized because suffering worse is... worse.
Why add up people's suffering? And why do we intuitively do this? I don't think we should add up people's suffering because it makes no sense for reasons given and I think we add people's suffering up for political reasons and because we don't realize we are actually treating each other as a mass organism when we are.
Adrian suggested how we should add them up for the same reason that we add up any value like 10 Ferraris rather than 1 for instance. But people already do value those things and it makes sense economically. That is a descriptive matter, that is not about why we morally should value something. And what I'm saying is why should we value many individuals more than one if all those individuals are suffering absolutely identically? It makes no sense to me, as I've said, for reasons given.
To go a bit more into detail: In what I will call alternative reality 1 (AR1): If one person of the 10,000 suffering is saved it is not equally moral to all 10,000 being saved but only because there are still 9,999 individuals suffering, not because they add up, they don't.
In AR2(Alernative reality 2) if there is only 1 individual being tortured who is saved that is equally moral to all the 10,000 being saved in AR1 because in both cases all the equal individual pain in existence was eliminated.
Opinions and reasoning please.
EDIT: And another thought though too.... to approach it another way.... is 10,000 people who are equally happy better than one? I think not because everyone experiences exactly the same level of happiness as if it was just one of them.... so to act as if more is any 'better' is to pretend there is something extra here.
