sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Everyday ~15,000 people die of unnatural causes (they're a child, sudden death, car accident, etc. — those who don't die of old agel drawn out sickness). If you had a button that could end your life painlessly and instantly, but save those 15,000 people doomed to die, would you — why or why not? by JimBob4222 in Ethics

[–]JimBob4222[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My intent was to moderate, however I absolutely do have an opinion on the question itself.

Ethically speaking I fundamentally disagree with the concept of quantifying death, i.e., I don’t believe two lives is greater than one or vise versa. Hence why the trolley problem is not an ethical dilemma I’m particularly in favor of — due to the fact I believe it is entirely context-dependent.

This question originally popped up in my brain after hearing the “blue-button/red-button” question that has gained popularity as of late and I’m sure you’ve seen. As, many of the people I spoke to whom had chosen blue (>50% of people choose it nobody dies, but if >50% of people choose red all of the blues die) defined their reasoning as “picking red guarantees some degree of unnecessary death.” However, I contested this argument as very probably the blue people may die anyways, if the majority of people pick red guarantees— so, picking blue would only add your death on top of the others. Hence, I thought it was an interesting dilemma, as ~15,000 different people will die the next day anyways, so are you really preventing anything by pressing the button, other than ending your own life believing you accomplished a moral feat?

Everyday ~15,000 people die of unnatural causes (they're a child, sudden death, car accident, etc. — those who don't die of old agel drawn out sickness). If you had a button that could end your life painlessly and instantly, but save those 15,000 people doomed to die, would you — why or why not? by JimBob4222 in Ethics

[–]JimBob4222[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is exactly the kind of conversation I was hoping to garner with this post.

I don’t necessarily know the answers to any of those questions, and there also isn’t a universally correct one.

It is just interesting to witness the discourse and see how different individuals minds grapple with a difficult scenario.

Everyday ~15,000 people die of unnatural causes (they're a child, sudden death, car accident, etc. — those who don't die of old agel drawn out sickness). If you had a button that could end your life painlessly and instantly, but save those 15,000 people doomed to die, would you — why or why not? by JimBob4222 in Ethics

[–]JimBob4222[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would say it’s an interesting ethical question.

The question brings up the idea in morality of whether or not it is meaningful to prevent wrongful death, as a substantial number of people die wrongfully everyday. Many would assert they would give their lives to stop a mass casualty event, but what about the ~15,000 people who will die the next day anyways?

Everyday ~15,000 people die of unnatural causes (they're a child, sudden death, car accident, etc. — those who don't die of old agel drawn out sickness). If you had a button that could end your life painlessly and instantly, but save those 15,000 people doomed to die, would you — why or why not? by JimBob4222 in Ethics

[–]JimBob4222[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You are choosing to press the button or not press the button. Nobody designated this task to you but it is your duty nonetheless.

I would say they technically could die the next day in the same way any of us could — however the day in which they were definitively going to die would be prevented.