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

[Paul the Human]

But he has been saying 1 person suffering vs. 10,000 people suffering identically until that quote.

[ib.me.ub]

Yes, until that quote. He has now outlined the terms of suffering, making it easier for me to make a decision.

If he was too use the original premise once again, I would hold the same view.

[theVOID]

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.

Seriously, you gave the example of 10,000 people suffering identically, if they all suffer identically then the value suffering (x) can be given the value 1 (because there is no deviation in their experience of x).

Therefore, when you have 10,000 people experiencing x, compared to the 1 person experiencing x, you have one group of 10,0000X and 1 of 1X, thus given the choice to chose to save one group over the other, and provided that you have an aversion to suffering, it makes perfect sense for you to chose to eliminate the most instances of x possible in any one action.

Your second part "If you think that if enough people suffer from pin pricks you can consider that to morally outweigh one person being severely tortured" has nothing to do with your initial example. That example would be group 1 is one person experiencing 10,0000x and group 2 is 10,000 people experiencing 1x. It's a totally different case.

How did you determine that it's better to end the suffering of the 1 person experiencing 10,000x than it is the 10,000 people experiencing 1x? Just your subjective opinion right?

[theVOID]

But he has been saying 1 person suffering vs. 10,000 people suffering identically until that quote.

Yeah because he used two different cases and then just suddenly changed them.

Case 1. Group 1 = (1*1x) Group 2 = (10,000*1x). Every individual suffers equally, Group 2 contains more suffering.

Case 2. Group 1 = (1*10,000x). Group 2 - (10,000*1x). Each group suffers equally, in Group 1 the pain experienced by an individual is 10,000 times greater.

[Edwardo Piet]

If that is how you feel, then I can only conclude that you lack the capacity for empathy.

You're caring about all the people who suffer a pinprick more than the person being severely tortured (if there's enough of them), I find that to be much further away from empathy.

[Violet]

If that is how you feel, then I can only conclude that you lack the capacity for empathy.

You're caring about all the people who suffer a pinprick more than the person being severely tortured (if there's enough of them), I find that to be much further away from empathy.

You're not much of a group empath then

Will that one person (given that all the people in this hypothetical example were average) accomplish more for the world than to rid 10000 people of a small nuisance? Pinpricks are really annoying... imagine if one of them was a hemophiliac! Imagine if all of them were hemophiliacs!?!

[Edwardo Piet]

Suffering requires a sufferer. 10,000 sufferers suffering identically means 10,000 identical suffering. If you believe that more sufferers of identical suffering can outweigh less sufferers of identical suffering then that implies that enough sufferers of low level suffering can outweigh one sufferer with high level suffering. Despite the fact that in all cases identical sufferers means identical suffering.

Q.E.D

[Tiberius]

If that is how you feel, then I can only conclude that you lack the capacity for empathy.

You're caring about all the people who suffer a pinprick more than the person being severely tortured (if there's enough of them), I find that to be much further away from empathy.

No he isn't. You changed your example, thus changing our responses. If people are suffering identical amounts of pain, then the larger group of people should be saved. If the larger group are just suffering pin pricks, whilst one person is getting tortured, then that one person needs saving.

theVOID put it into mathematical formula quite nicely.

[Violet]

Suffering requires a sufferer. 10,000 identical sufferers means 10,000 identical suffering. If you believe that more sufferers of identical suffering can outweigh less sufferers of identical suffering then that implies that enough sufferers of low level suffering can outweigh someone with high level suffering. Despite the fact that in all cases identical sufferers means identical suffering.

It outweighs it because it's more people being negatively affected... even if it is very minor. This negative effect can be huge for being so 'small' as a pinprick (though not necessarily immediate) in some of the cases, as noted with hemophiliacs. Little negative things are some of the worst... do away with those and most of the population gets happier in an amount that far outweighs the single man's gratitude.

But the 'pinprick' has to be a noticeable annoyance, or people will not even register the pain. We're really talking about a very narrow range of pain here.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's not more negative to any sufferer. Not in the slightest tiniest bit. Suffering requires a sufferer. Sufferers suffering identically is identical suffering to all sufferers.