Play the numbers game

Given the choice to save one person in 20 diffrent countries or save the one you love


  • Total voters
    14
What are the circumstances? It depends on which was more fair, which depends on the situation.
 
Oniw17 said:
What are the circumstances? It depends on which was more fair, which depends on the situation.

why does it depend which is fair?

1 life v 1 life v one life v one life etc V the one life of the one you love?

ok


The one person in each country is a convicted fellan and sentanced to death as is the one you love. You can grant a pardon to the one in each country of 20 or the one you love.

Bearing in mind when generally asked to answer 'spur of the moment' ethical dilemmas concerning (sacrificing the one to save the many) you know nothing of the individuals personal circumstances)
 
Oniw17 said:
Then the latter.

ok, so lets create a diff situation

one person in each of 20 countries has been taken hostage by terrorists as has your loved one, they will all be beheaded, you can save one in each of 20 countries or the one you love.

Do you still save the 'one' you love?
 
Theoryofrelativity:

Hmmm....

When I posted one of these dilemmas, you complained that they were useless and unrealistic.

What changed your mind?
 
That's the same outline as the last siuation, it's just as fair either way. I was talking about a situation like the one you love is taken hostage and you can sacrifice 20 others from 20 different countries to save him/her. In that situation, I would choose the 20 people.
 
Last edited:
James R said:
Theoryofrelativity:

Hmmm....

When I posted one of these dilemmas, you complained that they were useless and unrealistic.

What changed your mind?

so you didn't read the posts I made after that demonstrating I could see value with regards to unravelling the human psyche and fun element? I think that's what you call selective reading.

meanwhile..........

What interests me is the numbers game, in your thread, many were pro saving 2:1 (20 for 10) here I am asking about 20:1 yet the majority will save the 1, thus how you 'word' the question is all important. The numbers are less so it would appear.

Thus we still do not know what anyone would do in a particular given situation as they are all too unlikely. But the power of language can be seen and makes one realise just how effective the media is when it phrases it's poll questions and the manner in which they present the results. It's all about bias and manipulation.
 
Oniw17 said:
That's the same outline as the last siuation, it's just as fair either way. I was talking about a situation like the one you love is taken hostage and you can sacrifice 20 others from 20 different countries to save him/her. In that situation, I would choose the 20 people.

I see, interesting re-word

the wording is all important it appears, especially given your two different answers and the result being to exterminate 20 in one answer and save 20 in the other. The results are thus contradictory.

Language is a powerful thing yes.
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
We are consummed with 'numbers ' when it comes to ethical dilemmas,

do you save 1 you love or 20 you do not

note this:

11111111111111111111 v 1

seems like a logical choice to save the group on the left, it looks larger

consider it though this way

Q:
Imagine the 20 are all spread out around the globe, one person in each country. Do you still save the 'one' in each country rather than the 'one' you love who resides in your country?

Each life only has a value of 1

Thus saving 1 life is being compared to saving 20 lots of 1 life, not a super and more valuable '20'

I can only fly one kite at at time, so are 20 kites better for me than one? 20 kites in 20 different locations do not a kite festival make.

I used to think, it would be better to save 20, but
the ones you love are the ones you know, and who would likely save you in the same situation. Save the 1 you love and it's more ethical than saving 20 random people, but if you know these 20 people, and some of them are important to the world, then you save the 20.

I'll go with saving the 1 I know and love. I have a responsibility to protect those I love.

The reason it's unethical to save complete strangers over the 1 you love is because you have a responsibility to protect the 1 you love.
 
TimeTraveler said:
I used to think, it would be better to save 20, but
the ones you love are the ones you know, and who would likely save you in the same situation. Save the 1 you love and it's more ethical than saving 20 random people, but if you know these 20 people, and some of them are important to the world, then you save the 20.

I'll go with saving the 1 I know and love. I have a responsibility to protect those I love.

The reason it's unethical to save complete strangers over the 1 you love is because you have a responsibility to protect the 1 you love.

my point is also this

each life only has a value of 1

20 lives still only represents 20 lives each with a value of 1, it is not a life with a value of 20.

Thus really numbers should be irrelevant all together, and the people as a value of 1 should be considered, which you have touched on above.
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
I see, interesting re-word

the wording is all important it appears, especially given your two different answers and the result being to exterminate 20 in one answer and save 20 in the other. The results are thus contradictory.

Language is a powerful thing yes.
No there not contradictory. In your situation I would sacrifice 20 peope who weren't already in danger, taken from their homes. In my situation, the 20 others are hostages too, and so it's just as fair to serve my own reasoning as it is to serve someone elses. IMO, it's an issue of fairness. It wouldn't be fair to take 20 people unrelated to the situation and to put them in danger, or to death. In the other situation, there is nothing to feel guilty about.
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
my point is also this

each life only has a value of 1

20 lives still only represents 20 lives each with a value of 1, it is not a life with a value of 20.

Thus really numbers should be irrelevant all together, and the people as a value of 1 should be considered, which you have touched on above.

Each life has the value assigned to it by the person you're asking. Calling it "1" doesn't change that.

20 of unknown value vs. 1 of the highest value.

It's just human nature to go with what you know.
 
wesmorris said:
Each life has the value assigned to it by the person you're asking. Calling it "1" doesn't change that.

20 of unknown value vs. 1 of the highest value.

It's just human nature to go with what you know.

I get your point re 'value' but that's not the context I meant

the reason I posed the question like this is to see if everyone would go for the 1, in other threads, the majority favoured saving the most people, note James R's thread re the train track scenario, ratio 2:1, 20 at risk, 10 not at rsik, yet most elected to kill the 10 not at risk to save the 20 who were at risk.

It is all about language it seems
 
Back
Top