Welcome to the trolley problem.
I always always hated that problem. It is so contrived. Have you seen trolleys? They are freaken slow and full of safeties. Also the workers would have locked out the line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas
Basically the plot of this story. It poses the issue of how much we value society over the individual, and if that is good or not. Would you want to live in a world that depended on the the torture of a single person. You then could extrapolate that out to societies in the real world, US and chattel slavery. the west and the use of sweat shop labor for cheap products, the Emirates and their use of migrants as indentured servants. Even tipped wages for servers in the USA, the gig economy, and things like medical residencies could be considered a minor version of Omelas. As humans, we often tolerate the abuse or exploitation of others for our own benefit, or even just out of ignorance and inaction.
A great story that illustrates this question really well. It is by Ursula K. Le Guin, written in 1973, if anyone is wondering.
Ursula K. Le Guin
So pissed that she is not much more famous. Earthsea is one of the great fantasy stories that people tend to forget.
It always strikes me how few female sci-fi and fantasy writers I’ve read. I’ve tried amending that mistake over the last couple of years but it’s not easy, especially when looking for books translated into more obscure languages.
Now that you say it - her sci-fi is also up there with the best. Did you find any other interesting female sci-fi authors?
Yes! Becky Chambers is a really interesting one. Her series Wayfarers is really different to most stuff I’ve read.
I also read Octavia E. Butler’s Kindred, which was amazing. Wholeheartedly recommend it.
Thanks, will check them out!
No problem, hope you enjoy!
Julian May has a great series in two parts, the Saga of Pliocene exiles and the Galactic Milieu trilogy. Amazing books, great story, very moving and thought provoking.
Sounds intriguing, will check it out - thanks.
deleted by creator
It is a quick read. One of a handful of stories that I have gone back to over the decades.
Star Trek Strange New Worlds recently did an interpretation of this story
deleted by creator
Like what happens in the anthropocene to pretty much all animals except dogs & cats lol
https://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/the-ones-who-stay-and-fight/
Someone made a response story of sorts, figure I might as well share it here
I mean, most Christians would say yes because that’s the entire premise of the crucifixion.
This interpretation leaves out the most important part of the crucifixion story: Jesus willingly took on the world’s sins out of love. So whether or not most Christians would say yes depends on if the one person being tortured has a choice in the matter, which is unspecified in the question.
I came to say the same thing. This is exactly what Christianity believes.
But of course, it was Jesus who gave himself willingly.
If he was forced to do that, it would’ve been reprehensible because he was the only truly innocent person who ever lived.
If that one innocent person agrees to it, I say yes. Otherwise, no.
If nobody volunteers, we all go down.
Then it becomes are you willing to torture innocents to save everyone else?
If they volunteer yes. But torture you sign up for isn’t torture; a key aspect of torture is its nonconsensual nature.
I’ll take a different approach here. Evolution does not care about your feelings.
If a species is unwilling to self-sacrifice for the greater good, and it comes up against an event that cannot be solved with selfishness, it goes extinct. Like in this scenario.
But evolution is a motherfucker, and evolution does not care about your feelings, the only thing that matters to evolution is reproductive success. So some people are going to be altruistic because that’s better for the species because it makes it more survivable.
I’m not saying it’s right, I’m not saying it’s wrong, but the species that’s going to survive is the one that’s willing to self sacrifice for the greater good of the species. To increase reproductive success. And that’s what’s going to be left in the universe. Because evolution does not care. You either get with the program or you get out of the gene pool no other option
Evolution is not a good base for morals. We tried it out - was really bad.
Now hold on. How can we be certain? Maybe holocaust 2: electric boogaloo will be better
I’m in Germany, so not sure if allowed to answer.
Sure you can! Say it with me: “Eugenics and genocide aren’t a fast track to an improved gene pool. Holocaust 2 is bad news bears.”
Dang, I’m already marching on the street with a burning torch.
Evolution works, we exist.
Sure, but is a bad basis for morals. Like I said - social Darwinism is dodgy at best.
Evolutionary biology is definitely no basis for a system of morality. But I must say, as a biologist who studied evolution, that social Darwinism is not based either on evolutionary theory or empirical evidence. The idea that evolution is driven solely by competitive ability is pseudoscience, and works neither in human nor animal populations.
I wrote it further down, ist based on very basic understanding of evolution (happen to have studied biology myself) and sure, like any other moral system it’s not based on any empirical evidence.
Oh agreed! 100%!! Evolution has no morality baked into it just efficaciousness.
So using evolution to reason moral questions is not the best way to go.
It may not be the happiest way to go but I think it’s the only self-consistent way to go.
As an individual I totally believe in making the world a better place, do unto others as that you would have them do unto you, all of that. But in the scenario where the world’s going to end unless one dude sacrifices themselves, I would say basic instinct kicks in. The tribe must survive!
I hope you just pretend that you don’t know what social Darwinism is and how applying it worked out in the end.
You know Darwin himself was against the idea. He argued that our ability to look after one another was one of the most vital parts of being human and we can’t save humanity by giving up our humanity.
How did you manage to interpret my comment in a way that I support social Darwinism?
Evolution is a scientific concept, it is not an ideology.
No it’s not morally preferable. Fuck that world that requires human sacrifice.
Just out of interest, what if we make it a (not-human) animal instead of a human? Or, what if we make it trillions of animals every year. What about a world that doesn’t require it but still includes mass amounts of animal sacrifice unnecessarily? That’s the world we’re in right now 😂
Most peoples empathy differs from human to animal.
But it shouldn’t. Our empathy with other humans all boils down to knowing their ability to suffer. And science today agrees, that most animals are able to suffer and feel pain just like us. We really should include them into our circle of moral consideration and thankfully more and more people already do
Empathy is not rational. It’s more based on ability to relate to others experience. We are more empathic to people closer in our life and to people who made similar experiences as we. The same goes for animals, we have much more empathy towards pets and animals we perceive as intelligent. But it would be nice if we expanded our empathy - but first it need to include all humans and even that is quite the large asking.
I mean the “first world” is built entirely on the sacrifices of the rest of the world. People live in unimaginably horrible conditions so that we can consume and be free.
I agree. It would be practical and coldhearted, not moral.
It’s also a fake question because there is no situation where torturing someone makes the world a better place.
Do you mean ultimate badass Talenel’Elin , Herald of War?
He. Did. Not. Break.
First thought!
Username checks out. Lol.
Nope. That’s a world that’s not worth saving.
Is it really though? Injustices happen all the time here. I want to agree with you but I’m struggling to come up with good justifications for it. Can you explain your thinking a little bit?
Probably a view that they’d rather go down rebelling even if defeat is guaranteed than accepting a system like that. Easier to overlook from the outside, but harder to once it becomes more personal or the decision is fully in your hands as opposed to the benefit of claiming to be a bystander.
So everyone including the innocent just ends?
Because regardless of the choice. Innocent people will die.
It’s how quickly you want that to happen I think is what we’re going after.
Is this voluntary? Is it random? Is the person truly innocent? Is this person known or will be remembered? Is it a child? Is the world aware?
I have a ton of questions that lean onto the “slow” side of things.
But I think it’s too easy to say “nope, just end it”.
It’s a fumbly one, eh?
I agree that in an existence with that decision on the line, we would have to question many things.
Does someone innocent have to die, or is someone lying about the rules of the decision to save themselves? Would people who expect to kill this person be willing to offer same thing themselves? If not, why can they really decide for someone else? Is the death actually necessary, and how? Will new religions form from this?
What happens if it fails? Will that person just be dead for no reason? Will their loved ones be cared for? Who would even qualify?
100%
There’s absolutely ground to wriggle on here. Maybe let’s try to make up a society where this is okay.
I would like to assume in this “perfectly ok to do this society” that the choice is fully open and known to all. As in all people in the society are subject to it. Like a complete random draw.
But then what about innocent people? I would define an innocent as a person who is sinless or hasn’t broken the law. Maybe if you try to do something evil you’re pardoned from this choice? That doesn’t seem right because everyone would do the least minor thing to be considered evil. And children or the neuro diverse might be left out on a huge disadvantage because how would they know what to do to be considered skippable.
Maybe it’s an external force working to destroy the planet. Someone has to be killed to stop it. So maybe innocent could just mean has no power over the process, no ability to affect it, no way to be skipped. If it’s seen that way, I would be kind of satisfied.
How often does this happen? Once a year? A decade? Every day? Eesh what a thought. What would society be like knowing that you might be randomly chosen to just end on a daily basis. It’d be like winning the anti-lottery.
If someone was chosen, in my model, they would be made known to the planet a while ahead of time, maybe 24 hours. And they would be given a huge life altering sum of money to do with however they please prior to being un-alived. Give it to their family, a charity, whatever.
Their name would be known as a hero of some sort, even if unwillingly so.
The death/torture can’t be painless, as the hypothetical implies so maybe there can be like a time limit here? Is this a long time torture thing? That sounds horrible.
Right now, if really feels like I’m trying to make my least favorite thing slightly palatable somehow.
Is this voluntary? Is it random? Is the person truly innocent? Is this person known or will be remembered? Is it a child? Is the world aware?
I just picture Cabin in the Woods.
Great movie, BTW. What a concept!
Which side did you fall onto, the people keeping the evil at bay, or the ones fighting to live even if it meant the end of the world?
I fell on the side of fighting to live and Marty was the best.
An inherently flawed world maintaining its function through cannibalism will inevitably devour itself into nonexistence. Why prolong its suffering?
Has that happened? No really I am asking for evidence. We have had forms of slavery since our species began. It wasn’t like one time we had a slave 20,000 years ago. The world still basically works with humans using humans. We don’t have to like it, we should fight it, but the idea that you are stating that if we are bad once we lose everything doesn’t match with the facts that we have.
I am typing this while wearing clothing made by children on a phone made by slaves in China.
Is that person Rupert Murdoch? Then yes
Haha, innocent. He doesn’t really fit the description.
Shit you’re right
I’m still fine with sacrificing him. Volcano, vultures, doesn’t really matter. Some kicks to the balls won’t do harm as well. He needs to be removed from society.
He’s technically “innocent” of millions of deaths caused by his decades of misinformation.
Can we torture 10 deserving people instead of 1 innocent?
deleted by creator
Not really. It’s more like:
Everyone ending
One innocent ending to keep everyone else alive
That’s more challenging.
But living is suffering.
I would say “life is a struggle”. Of course it’s challenging, it doesn’t mean that it’s bad.
Regardless, what’s your point?
You use the word struggle to give some kind of meaning to the suffering.
My point is that there is no answer to the question because life is suffering.
While I see your point, I don’t ascribe to the nihilistic point of view that life has no meaning therefore no reason. I find it dark and disheartening. To me, the fact that we can even have this conversation is a miracle and there’s a certain happiness I get from knowing that despite my suffering and yours, we are still strangers who can engage in a conversation and have fun with it (I hope this is how you feel, too!).
I’m more of an absurdist. While there may be no end to the suffering, we can still derive pleasure and satisfaction from life. We can enjoy it if we want find ways to, because that’s our natural desire, to seek happiness.
If you want to try looking at life like that, then this question becomes MUCH more interesting. Because despite suffering, this society found a way to continue. The question of whether or not it’s moral, or how it’s moral, depends on if life has meaning.
All questions kind of depend on that, no?
True, but I think those being explicitly tortured will be suffering a lot more than the average person. We can define it as that for the hypothetical anyway xD
More challenging is to remove the benefit of answering as a bystander and hand over an active role, so now the question is would you torture an innocent to keep the world alive. Then question progresses to what if that innocent is someone you care most about to see the extent of their resolve
Let’s put more of the responsibility in the individuals hands. Would you be willing to carry out the torture of innocents under the belief that your actions guarantee peace?
what i meant by my original comment was, that ending the world is simply the better option
Yes
Someone’s been looking too much into Procedure Montauk 110
Prepare for the
Metamemeticthreat to be quarantined and for this whole infection vector to be [REDACTED]
I think it has happened numerous times already under the same pretense.
I am not sure if we are saved or not.
deleted by creator
I’d just walk away from Omelas.
A great story that illustrates this question really well. It is by Ursula K. Le Guin, written in 1973, if anyone is wondering.
