An uncomfortable ethics question.

[Nitsuj]

I must say, to be honest... I would have to say the ten IF other people didn't know I was in this dilemma. Otherwise, I don't know. If it was a christian convention and I just happened to be near there, them, easy (They'll be ready to meet their "God.")

[Edwardo Piet]

For me, 1 person and 10 people, morally speaking, is no different regardless of whether it's myself or anyone else. For me, morality is about suffering, and since people only suffer individually (we're not all some collective creature.... we can empathize but that's still really just our own pain, we just interpret what we believe others feel) - it all comes down to whoever suffers the most out of the people killed is the one who has the highest priority not to die.

[A Theist]

If the random choices were not my children or other family members, I would not choose to die in the place of strangers.
I'm not emotionally tied to strangers.

What happened to "love thy neighbour as thyself"?

Cherrypick much?

Cherrypick nothing. I never said that I was a good Christain, or even a practicing one anymore.
Jesus died for strangers. I can't honestly say that I would follow His example.
I can't honestly say that I love my neighbors, let alone my enemies...and I don't think that I would turn the other cheek.
Some posters responded that they would die in the place of 10 strangers. I think, that in all reality, if placed in that situation, they wouldn't die for a stranger any more than I would.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I think, that in all reality, if placed in that situation, they wouldn't die for a stranger any more than I would.

That argument is a logical fallacy called tu quoque and irrelevant..The question is what YOU would do..

I accused you of cherrypicking because you describe yourself as a Pentacostal Christian. My mistake, I made an unwarranted assumption.

I agree that few people will sacrifice themselves for strangers if it's premeditated. However,in extremis it's common. I think that may be because deep down people don't think they will really die. I also think that for emergency workers of all kinds, training just kicks in. I'm going by personal experience as an army medic.(Not combat,just spent a LOT of time in jungle as platoon and sometimes company medic)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Tu quoque (pronounced /tjuːˈkwoʊkwɛ/ [1]), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a kind of logical fallacy. It is a Latin term for "you, too" or "you, also". A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

[A Theist]

I think, that in all reality, if placed in that situation, they wouldn't die for a stranger any more than I would.

That argument is a logical fallacy called tu quoque and irrelevant..The question is what YOU would do..

I accused you of cherrypicking because you describe yourself as a Pentacostal Christian. My mistake, I made an unwarranted assumption.

I agree that few people will sacrifice themselves for strangers if it's premeditated. However,in extremis it's common. I think that may be because deep down people don't think they will really die. I also think that for emergency workers of all kinds, training just kicks in. I'm going by personal experience as an army medic.(Not combat,just spent a LOT of time in jungle as platoon and sometimes company medic)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Tu quoque (pronounced /tjuːˈkwoʊkwɛ/ [1]), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a kind of logical fallacy. It is a Latin term for "you, too" or "you, also". A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

That argument is a logical fallacy called tu quoque and irrelevant..

I wasn't trying to form an argument, or discredit yours. Mine was simply a statement of cynicism.
..."The ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

However,in extremis it's common.

In the extreme, I agree.

I think that may be because deep down people don't think they will really die.

Good point.
Let's say, if those same people gave consideration to their own mortality, just before their act of bravado, do you think that most would still be as eager to die for 10 strangers? I know I wouldn't, and in my cynical worldview of the human population, I don't believe that most would either.

[josh.niles]

So from what I understand, you are all saying it just takes one crazy bastard to offset the whole balance?

[The Omnissiunt One]

So from what I understand, you are all saying it just takes one crazy bastard to offset the whole balance?

One train full of normal people=fine. One lone nutter with a bomb=disaster.

[ib.me.ub]

we're not all some collective creature....

Really!

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

I would save my own life, and I would expect anyone else to do the same, even though that's not what I would hope for in a reversed situation. Realistically, I really want to live. If friends or family were the ones to be killed I might change my mind.

Morally, I would make the wrong choice. I have no right to decide who lives or dies, but presented with the choice against my will I would choose myself in most circumstances.

[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?