RE: Is 10,000 people suffering identically equal bad as one of them?
November 2, 2010 at 7:49 pm
(This post was last modified: November 2, 2010 at 9:22 pm by ib.me.ub.)
(November 2, 2010 at 5:25 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I'll make it really fucking simple: If 10,000 people suffer identically, no one feels more pain than anyone else. So why should you or would you care 10,000 times more, or any more at all? Why care about quantity of sufferers if not one sufferer suffers any more than any other? If you think that if enough people suffer from pin pricks you can consider that to morally outweigh one person being severely tortured, then I give up: All I can say is I find that repugnant.
From this example given, fair enough. Since you have now outlined the terms of suffering, you premise is correct, in my opinion.
See, the problem for me is you haven't outlined the comparisons in suffering to allow for a truely subjective opinion to be formed. What is considered suffering, differes from one person to another person. You must realise that unless you specifically outline the context by which you are conducting your thought experiment, it is very hard to define the goal posts.
You need to outline the how the 10,000 are suffering (which you have) and how the one is suffering (which you haden't). The one could have just had a paper cut, which in my book is worse than a pin prick, but in reality arn't really that much worse than pin pricks. There is very little difference.
How does one determine which is a more detrimental suffering, when you have only previously outline one type of 'suffering'. How do we weigh it up if you don't describe both types of suffering.
If you just say 10,000 pin pricks Vs 1 suffering, when you haven't explained the 1 suffering, you get the answer we have given.
If you say 10,000 pin pricks Vs 1 torture, I will agree with you.
