strictly utilitywise no. but eventually you do hit a hard cap on how many people exist. and trying to “help” any more of that while hurting more is strictly lower util than a worse option
bad question
the terms are far too broad to make na actual informed decision on whether it is moral
“help” could be like give them $10 and hurt could be like kill their family or smthn
What Is She Cooking
i dont think it makes a difference. i thought the question would ask me whether or not the whole thing is moral in the first place but its not asking me that at all
tru
yeah
the question is a blob of text i agree
it doesn’t matter in the sense that the answer is the same either way, but the more people are involved the worse it is to not help the people
No matter how much you don’t care or convince yourself you don’t carw about pain, eventually your body will physically give out
this is somehow both incredibly singeresque and not singeresque at all
the more people are involved the more likely one of them is to be disabled
That’s literally irrelevant. It’s just asking if the scale changes things
Let’s uh, make the questiob better.
Assume that helping people means disabled people can walk, while the hurt people can no longer walk.
Like it’s very possible that the 10k could be more valuable to me than the 100k but I don’t know. I will never make a decision based on population alone. Not even a billion to one
i dont see how its irrelevant? if the hurt is like “people are seveerly distraught by what happens” i would probably say no, if the hurt is like “they are inconvienced or things arent optimal but they’ll be fine” i’d probably say yes
literally haven’t read a word in this conversation since the trolley was mentioned
this makes it harder
“Is it equally as bad to give 10 people $10 and kill 1 person’s family as it is to give 100,000 people $10 and kill 10,000 people’s family” and you can sub in whatever extrema you want