• afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Griseowulfin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Thoven@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Terevos@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • SeahorseTreble@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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 😂

        • HeyHo@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

    • Lmaydev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • RBWells@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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

          • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh agreed! 100%!! Evolution has no morality baked into it just efficaciousness.

              • jet@hackertalks.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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!

                • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I hope you just pretend that you don’t know what social Darwinism is and how applying it worked out in the end.

  • lath@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    An inherently flawed world maintaining its function through cannibalism will inevitably devour itself into nonexistence. Why prolong its suffering?

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • monobot@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think it has happened numerous times already under the same pretense.

    I am not sure if we are saved or not.

    • quicksand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

    • Hardeehar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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”.

      • NightOwl@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Hardeehar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

      • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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?

        • Hardeehar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • Asimov's Robot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      A great story that illustrates this question really well. It is by Ursula K. Le Guin, written in 1973, if anyone is wondering.