An uncomfortable ethics question.

[Violet]

There are several ethics questions the involve choosing to save 1 person vs 10 people. The classic is a train hurtling down the tracks towards 10 people, who are unable to escape. You can divert the train onto another set of tracks, but this set has 1 person on it, who is also unable to escape.

Such questions are sometimes hard to answer, but most people come to some sort of rationalisation; after all, we are dealing with other people.

Actually, these questions are easy as hell. Do you value the 1 person, or the ten people more? Each of us has our own answer. This is sometimes called triage. My answer depends on a number of variables... as any good answer to such a question should.

Luckily, from a practical point... you wouldn't have time to change tracks. Whichever people the train is hurtling towards shouldn't be standing on the tracks in a way they can't escape, and if such a situation were to arise: it is not unlikely that they were to be murdered anyway, and this methodology is but one of many others.

So the other day, I came across a much more uncomfortable question; one which I have had trouble answering, and I'm not even sure if any answer I come up with is really honest.

The question is: if you had to choose for either 10 random people in the world to die, or yourself to die, which would you choose?

The others. I recently regained my self worth, and have been having a happier existence than.... my whole life. 100 random people? Same answer. 1000? Same. 1 mil? yup. 100 mil? Oh yes.

I only start the questioning when we're talking about say 500 million-1 billion. Even then, I am now only interested in the lives of about maybe a dozen and a half people at most. If I could maintain their lives, then the rest of humanity can go to hell if I have to chose between myself and it.

Or perhaps an even harder one; where you have the choice between 1 (or 2) random people, and yourself.

Even easier than the last, actually.

Are our own lives worth as much as 10 people? How would you answer the question?

Our lives are worth different amounts to everyone. Some, like the self, might value a life quite highly. Others might think absolutely nothing of it. I answer the question with "it depends on a number of variables". There are some people I value more than myself, and I would die for them... I would do much worse than death for them. There are some times where the lives of many people might be worth more (aliens invading and the world has a chance if I die? Hell yes I'll die). Or even one person... a man is about to develop the cure for the common cold, and my death can ensure he releases it? Hell yes.

Using random people in your examples is only going to tell us wether a person is worried about a random pool including their loved ones, or not. In a smaller population, it would be more frightening a decision.

By the way... have you ever tried the train brake?