Is 10,000 people suffering identically equal bad as one of them?

[Violet]

The terms used to compare the two cases are value judgements, and value judgements can be both individual or social (or familial, or cultural, or traditional, and so on). When we make claims like "X is better than Y", there's always (and has to be) an implicit qualification: "X is better than Y according to this standard (my opinion / society's opinion / this observable consequence / etc.). Whether or not 10,000 people suffering is worse than 1 person suffering depends entirely on which qualification is implied. For society? Yes it is. For the individual in the latter case? Hell no. It would be a misunderstanding of language to think that value judgements like this are unconditional (categorical).

Not necessarily.... the psychological/bodily damage to the individual that is suffering might turn the next best thing for humanity into a terrorist. The people involved in the suffering is an important notation. If we extend the definition of 'people' to include anything with personality (iow: anything that is a person)... those 10,000 people could be as inconsequential as say, dogs. It might not be a fun choice to make, but one shouldn't just judge the wood on the fact that it is wood, and then choose between quantities... quality should also be entered into the equation.

Some people talk about 'the big picture' with numbers alone. But one great person can do more to change a country than a much larger quantity of the less adept/useful. The question in such a case... would that change be for the better, as seen by the one making the decision?