Poll: Save One Or Save Many

[AngleWyrm]

Scenario 1: A train full of people is headed for doom, and you can divert it by flipping a switch, but that will kill a maintenence worker on the side track. Do you flip the switch?

Most people would say yes.

Scenario 2: You and another person are on a bridge above the train full of people headed for doom; you can stop the crash by pushing the other person off the bridge into the way of the train. Do you push the other person off the bridge?

Oddly, most people would say no.

 

[default]

The loved one. Fuck the many, I'll never meet them again and they will never have any bearing on my life.

Selfish? For sure. Logical in relation to self? Also for sure.

 

[Rawne1980]

My wife, every time.

I love my wife and i'd do anything to keep her safe.

Bye bye the thousands.

 

[lacktheknack]

I wouldn't know until it happened.

Happily, it won't ever happen.

 

[Olas]

I have to go with the many.
Choosing to sacrifice countless others just to save one person close to me is, I think, selfish and borderline greedy. It might sound utilitarian but I really don't care, those "others" are people too, with loved ones who care just as much about them as I do to the people important to me.

 

[DanielBrown]

Most probably frozen up, but if I managed to get to my senses I would save the loved one.

 

[Smiley Face]

It depends on the specifics of the situation - what's the nature of the many I'm saving, what are their alternative options that give a probability of success, do the existing options have probabilities of failure, how does my loved one feel about what I should do, did I get a good night's sleep, etc.

 

[SwagLordYoloson]

Sacrifice both to get away even quicker. Build up a wall of doubt as to if they actually died or not and if it was my fault or not. Thus I would be able to continue on living as per usual.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

I have a loyalty to the people that I love, and that loyalty obligates me to save them. So, if I had to make the choose that is what I would do, and I don't necessarily think it's the morally wrong choice. We all have are own moral codes that we live by, and mine happens to demand such a loyalty from myself.

 

[The Night Angel]

I think I'd probably choose the many, but I can't know that unless I'm ever actually put in that situation. Doubt I'd be able to live with myself after the decision one way or the other though.

 

[Master-Jedi]

So wait, one person for world peace,cancer cured, no hunger, etc.? Yeah, I would hope my wife would hate me if I saved her over all of that.

 

[shintakie10]

Anyone remember that movie where you press a button, someone you don't know dies, and you get money? I think there was meant to be some sort of emotional conflict in that film, I dunno. I'd be hammering that button.

So yeah, I'd absolutely save a loved one. Because I don't know the other people, fuck 'em.
The only drawback would be if that same loved one would then hate you for killing so many people.

That was a twilight zone episode, probably one of my favorites. A couple was presented with a simple choice, press a button and get a giant bag of cash. This cash would be enough to get you basically anythin you ever wanted and never have to want for anythin ever again. The downside? When you push that button a person in the world dies. You don't know this person at all, so the only knowledge you have of them is that you directly caused their death. The other option was to simply walk away. You get nothin from choosin this option other than the knowledge that you saved someones life or more literally chose to not take someones life.

The episode has them grapplin with the decision until they come to the conclusion that they want the money for a multitude of reasons and they reason that because they don't know the person they can live with the knowledge that they killed someone. After they hit the button they are presented with the money and then told who they just killed. The person that gets killed when you press the button is always the last person to have hit the button.

A great episode.

On topic! The many. Its kind of downplayin the significance of the choice by sayin that it would be an easy decision. It would be a painful decision that would probably haunt me to the day I die. I would most likely stall until the last moment and cry so very hard, but at the end of it all it is the many. It's not out of some form of wantin gratitude for what I did (if anythin anyone who thanked me would probably just upset me more because it'd remind me of what I lost), or expectin some form of reward. The thought process is basically this. I can not, will not be so selfish as to believe my wants and desires outweigh 1000 peoples wants, desires, and dreams.

Now, I should point out as the number gets closer to 1, I can definitely see myself bein selfish. Someone I love and care about against 2 people? Sorry 2 people, you're screwed. Against 10 people? I might have some qualms about it, but I'd still probably pick my loved one. Get up to the hundreds and it starts gettin to be very difficult not to choose the many. Any higher and it would always have to be the many.

 

[Maze1125]

Well I was calculating it as 6,999,999,900/7,000,000,000 chance one of the 100 would not get killed. Then putting that to the xth power to give the me the chances one of the 100 would not get killed in x selections.

Right. As in, we are both correct.
[facetiousness]But you obviously need to go meet 50 more people.[/facetiousness]

Well actually our calculations would give different numbers. Can't just multiply x by 150/7,000,000,000. The proper chance that one will be selected is 150/7,000,000,000*(6,999,999,850/7,000,000,000)^(x-1). Or at least close to that, in actuality we'd need to keep decreasing that denominator with every multiplication. But at 7,000,000,000 that wouldn't matter much if x is only like 5k.

Actually, with the numbers we're talking about, the difference between the two calculations is insignificant.

5000*150/7000000000 = 0.000107142857
1-(6999999850/7000000000)^5000 = 0.000107137119

Which are identical answers to 5 significant figures.

Yes, the correct calculation in a case like this is 1-(1-p)^n, but if p and n are small 1-(1-p)^n =~ np.

 

[BaronUberstein]

Depends on the situation. For example...

Hypothetical 1) The choice is between a family member or the entire staff of a running nuclear power plant, I'm choosing the power plant staff. Meltdown could cause an even larger shitstorm.

Hypothetical 2) Between a family member and a crowd of people at a mini-mall. I'm probably going with the loved one.

Insane Hypothetica 3) Family member VS curing cancer. That family member is going to be 6ft under. Curing a major problem at the cost of one life is worth it.

Really, it matters on the actual number of people and what their profession is known to be. The less I know about the others and the less there are of them, the higher chance I'll pick a loved one. If somebody said they'd kill my brother or the entire CERN staff, I'd say kill my brother. But if somebody said kill an equal number of gas station attendants to the CERN staff or my brother, I'd probably say kill the attendants. They're not bad people, and it probably makes me look bad that I can say I hold such a distinction of people based on their career, but it's how I think.

Then again, this is of course simply working with the two-option parameter. Being me, I'd try to find a 3rd option. Perhaps the good old "Be Batman and beat up the guy with the gun" option.

 

[War Penguin]

Anyone remember that movie where you press a button, someone you don't know dies, and you get money? I think there was meant to be some sort of emotional conflict in that film, I dunno. I'd be hammering that button.

So yeah, I'd absolutely save a loved one. Because I don't know the other people, fuck 'em.
The only drawback would be if that same loved one would then hate you for killing so many people.

Forgive me, but that reminds me a lot of this:

OT: Spock said it best himself: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." So I'd save many, of course.

 

[babinro]

I think it's too situational.

It depends on which loved one. If I know that they'd hate me and themselves for saving them, it helps make my choice.

Until I'm in that situation I don't know what I'd truly pick. I'd like to say I'd save the lives of many though.

 

[Tazzy da Devil]

The loved one. I feel horrible for admitting it, but if it was a choice between thousands of people and my cat, I'd save my cat in a heartbeat. Besides, there's too many people in the world already. Thinning out the population a bit would probably be good for it.

 

[Vivi22]

Depends on the individual, and assuming the multiple people are a random assortment. It the individual in question is my wife, my best friend or my sister then I'll save the individual.

Anyone else and I'd let them die to save the many. Yes, that includes letting quite a number of family members die as well, including my parents.

 

[Yopaz]

I think I would save the loved one because I don't deal with loosing someone I love very well. Sure I could save a hundred and maybe be considered a hero, but I would still be depressed over my personal loss. Also in a situation like this it's more natural to react to saving someone you know and ignore everyone that doesn't matter, which in many cases mean save yourself. There's also the chance I would be unable to react.

 

[Brandon237]

I have a loyalty to the people that I love, and that loyalty obligates me to save them. So, if I had to make the choose that is what I would do, and I don't necessarily think it's the morally wrong choice. We all have are own moral codes that we live by, and mine happens to demand such a loyalty from myself.

That is actually a thought I have had a few times before on this subject, although I wouldn't have said it as eloquently

The people very close to me [footnote]particularly my girlfriend, and the OP was referring to significant others[/footnote] have devoted huge portions of their lives to helping me, spending time with me and making my life worth-while, I would want to protect them. That is just the selfless perspective...

And now onto the selfish one: I could NEVER live with myself being responsible for the death of my girlfriend. The number of other people who would die is largely irrelevant to me so long as it is guaranteed I don't know them, I would save her even over a million people. Because at the end of the day, those people are going to have far less of a bearing on my life than losing her would.

So both out of what the loved one has done to earn that vote of saving from me and my own selfishness say that they will live, the many will die.