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

[Edwardo Piet]

This came from an argument with Shinylight and Adrian in the chat line. They both insist that it's blatantly obvious that more people suffering is worse even when every individual's suffering is absolutely identical. I was going to do a poll but it's pointless because I'm obviously not on the side of popularity but that is irrelevant to argument.

Apparently, 10,000 people suffering absolutely identically to any one of them is 'worse' than one of those identical person's suffering because it matters more in the 'big picture'. I say that it obviously doesn't matter and there is no 'big picture' because only individual's suffer so when you add up the suffering of many individuals you pretend that such a big picture actually exists when it doesn't. It equates to pretending that all the suffering of many different people can be treated as if it was all in the same organism.

I'm sure we all agree that we are not a mass organism. But clearly Adrian and Shiny don't seem to see how adding up suffering of many is treating individuals as if they were a mass organism. If this is not what this so called 'big picture' is about then I don't know it is!

My philosophy is that those who suffer worse should be prioritized obviously.... but those who suffer equally feel all the same amount and people only feel their own individual pain. So it makes no sense to pretend they add up.

People who suffer worse don't add up with those who suffer less bad either.... they are merely prioritized because suffering worse is... worse.

Why add up people's suffering? And why do we intuitively do this? I don't think we should add up people's suffering because it makes no sense for reasons given and I think we add people's suffering up for political reasons and because we don't realize we are actually treating each other as a mass organism when we are.

Adrian suggested how we should add them up for the same reason that we add up any value like 10 Ferraris rather than 1 for instance. But people already do value those things and it makes sense economically. That is a descriptive matter, that is not about why we morally should value something. And what I'm saying is why should we value many individuals more than one if all those individuals are suffering absolutely identically? It makes no sense to me, as I've said, for reasons given.

To go a bit more into detail: In what I will call alternative reality 1 (AR1): If one person of the 10,000 suffering is saved it is not equally moral to all 10,000 being saved but only because there are still 9,999 individuals suffering, not because they add up, they don't.

In AR2(Alernative reality 2) if there is only 1 individual being tortured who is saved that is equally moral to all the 10,000 being saved in AR1 because in both cases all the equal individual pain in existence was eliminated.

Opinions and reasoning please.

EDIT: And another thought though too.... to approach it another way.... is 10,000 people who are equally happy better than one? I think not because everyone experiences exactly the same level of happiness as if it was just one of them.... so to act as if more is any 'better' is to pretend there is something extra here.

[Yahadreas]

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).

[The Omnissiunt One]

It's one of the strongest objections to utilitarianism, in my view. Nonetheless, when the strength of experience is comparable, it makes sense that it's better for fewer people to suffer. Even then, I'm not sure why. It's just one of those moral intuitions which we can't really explain logically, but which almost everyone shares.

[Paul the Human]

It has to do with an individual's empathy. When one person suffers, we feel empathy for that one person. When many people suffer, our empathy is increased exponentially. If feels worse when more people suffer to those of us not included in the suffering.

[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?

[Edwardo Piet]

The 'big picture' of the total sum of suffering is nothing but a fantasy because only individuals suffer.... out of all 10,000 individuals if they all suffer absolutely identically then not one of them suffers any more than any other. So to add all their suffering together is to act as if anyone or anything exists that suffers any more than them when that isn't the case because they all suffer identically.

Because we are finite beings we can't suffer or experience pleasure infinitely..... so if we are to illogically add up our sufferings and pleasures (as if any such being exists that experiences the total pain or pleasure of all such beings) that would mean that if we get enough people suffering the pain of a mere pin prick or gnat bite together they would outweigh the importance of one person being tortured severely ..... which is absolutely ludicrous because not one of the other people would be suffering anything worse than a pin prick or gnat bite. To add up the sheer quantity of tiny sufferings to act as if there is anything whatsoever suffering more than the one person tortured is to believe in a fantasy. Just because you can add up the sufferings doesn't mean any such being exists that experiences it. And of course they don't because individuals only suffer their own pain because if you are to say "No because they can also empahize off others suffering" that is only their own imagined pain of anothers suffering and obviously counts as their own suffering and not anybody elses.

No one exists who experiences the total sum of suffering of all others, so to care not just about the individual experiences of people but also the total sum is to care about a being who doesn't exist, it isn't caring about anyone real.

[Yahadreas]

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?

I'm not entirely sure where the disagreement is. Are you saying that it is possible for a claim like "X is better than Y" to be unqualified? Or is this merely a pedantic response to my claim that 10,000 people suffering is worse for society than 1 person suffering? If it's the latter point, then I think you're misunderstanding my case.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think she is saying that one individual can be a more important assessment for the well-being of the majority than the majority itself because there may be an individual who if you neglect their well-being they end up causing more harm to the majority than if you focused on the majority. But I would respond to that with: "But in the long run then that is still the well-being of the majority you are focusing on."

I personally don't care about the sum total well-being of all individual living things because not a single individual living thing actually experiences it. It's a fantasy. See my new sig

[Violet]

The 'big picture' of the total sum of suffering is nothing but a fantasy because only individuals suffer.... out of all 10,000 individuals if they all suffer absolutely identically then not one of them suffers any more than any other. So to add all their suffering together is to act as if anyone or anything exists that suffers any more than them when that isn't the case because they all suffer identically.

'The Big Picture' is a subjective idea of "what matters most". It is not nothing... but rather dearly important to all of us. The suffering of millions doesn't even matter if it is entirely unrelated to one's goals. Sometimes it is a great thing that as many as possible suffer... such as when thinking of enemies. It doesn't matter how much suffer... or how many. It matters what the one considers the wiser decision to be. Given no other details other than wether 10000 people or 1 person suffers... I choose the 1. Given the choice between the 2-10 and the 1 though... i choose the 2-10. Few things are worse than suffering alone.

Because we are finite beings we can't suffer or experience pleasure infinitely..... so if we are to illogically add up our sufferings and pleasures (as if any such being exists that experiences the total pain or pleasure of all such beings) that would mean that if we get enough people suffering the pain of a mere pin prick or gnat bite together they would outweigh the importance of one person being tortured severely ..... which is absolutely ludicrous because not one of the other people would be suffering anything worse than a pin prick or gnat bite. To add up the sheer quantity of tiny sufferings to act as if there is anything whatsoever suffering more than the one person tortured is to believe in a fantasy. Just because you can add up the sufferings doesn't mean any such being exists that experiences it. And of course they don't because individuals only suffer their own pain because if you are to say "No because they can also empahize off others suffering" that is only their own imagined pain of anothers suffering and obviously counts as their own suffering and not anybody elses.

Believe me... if I could stop the nuisance of gnat bites across the world by having someone (anyone) be tortured horrifically, I'd volunteer. At least I could perform that service to the world.

Imagined pain can fucking hurt. Or it an make someone giddy that someone else is feeling pain. I admit, when I discovered that I could turn the gravity hammer in Halo 3 so that it is hitting the spartan's crotch... I was a mess of laughter for a good thirty minutes as I repeatedly hit the button.

It doesn't matter that we can experience their suffering at all, actually. The bare knowledge that they are suffering should be enough.

No one exists who experiences the total sum of suffering of all others, so to care not just about the individual experiences of people but also the total sum is to care about a being who doesn't exist, it isn't caring about anyone real.

Supposedly, a man named 'Jesus' did that once. I for one care that gnats exist, and I hate gnat bites. I hate mosquitos more though. One person suffers a terribly painful death (or agonizing elongated existence) and gnats are gone? Hell yes. Let someone suicidal do it though, as other people would like to live in the world without gnats.

[Edwardo Piet]

'The Big Picture' is a subjective idea of "what matters most".

Yes. But it is still a picture that does not exist. There is no individual who suffers the total sum of what any one individual suffers. Nothing suffers the total sum of all individual suffering. Individual suffering actually exists in external reality, the total sum of suffering only exists in imagination.

It is not nothing... but rather dearly important to all of us.

Clearly it isn't to all of us. It isn't to me and it isn't important to anyone who agrees with me that there's no point caring about the totality of suffering when not one single individual living being experiences it.

The suffering of millions doesn't even matter if it is entirely unrelated to one's goals.

The suffering of millions doesn't matter to us if it doesn't matter to us yes, that's a tautology.

Sometimes it is a great thing that as many as possible suffer... such as when thinking of enemies.

That is irrelevant to my point that

it is still a picture that does not exist. There is no individual who suffers the total sum of what any one individual suffers

that merely states that people care about different things, it doesn't refute my point.

Believe me... if I could stop the nuisance of gnat bites across the world by having someone (anyone) be tortured horrifically, I'd volunteer.

Despite the fact you would be caring about a total sum of suffering that doesn't actually exist outside of your own fantasy? You'd happily ignore the fact that all those people receiving gnat bites were merely receiving gnat bites an the person being horrifically tortured was being horrifically tortured?

At least I could perform that service to the world.

The service of preferring gnat bites to horrific torture because you pretend that these gnat bites add up in reality when they don't? To whom do they add up? To no one - they feel gnat bites and the person tortured feels torture.

Imagined pain can fucking hurt.

Yes but that's irrelevant to my point. By gnat bites I mean very mild pain and by horrific torture I mean very very extremely severe pain. Every living being when it is feeling a gnat bite and nothing else is by definition only feeling that, and so to add all those experiences up as if they outweigh the suffering of absolutely anyone experiencing horrific torture is to care about a total sum that is irrelevant to absolutely everyone's conscious emotions in actual reality because no one feels it. No one feels the sum total of gnat bites people only feel their own gnat bites. The imagination of the sum total is a different thing entirely to the real sum total. The real sum total doesn't actually exist in conscious experience.

Starting with the premise that you care about individual suffering it makes no sense to care about the sum total of suffering because not one individual feels that. You're caring about something bizzare that doesn't exist in reality then.

I for one care that gnats exist, and I hate gnat bites. I hate mosquitos more though. One person suffers a terribly painful death (or agonizing elongated existence) and gnats are gone? Hell yes. Let someone suicidal do it though, as other people would like to live in the world without gnats.

Assuming that NO gnat ever causes as much pain whatsoever to any one person experiencing a terribly painful death then it makes no sense to care about the sum total of such gnat bites because NOONE experiences it. You're then not just caring about individuals but you're also caring about something that isn't real in experience.

No one experiences the sum total of all individuals' experience of suffering or pleasure, you care about that, you're not caring about real experience.