Posts
Comments
I think the reason people are hesitant to choose the dust speck option is that they view the number 3^^^3 as being insurmountable. It's a combo chain that unleashes a seemingly infinite amount of points in the "Bad events I have personally caused" category on their scoreboard. And I get that. If the torture option is a thousand bad points, and the dust speck is 1/1000th of a point for each person, than the math clearly states that torture is the better option.
But the thing is that you unleash that combo chain every day.
Everytime you burn a piece of coal, or eat a seed, or an apple, you are potentially causing mild inconvenience to a hypothetically infinitely higher number of people than 3^^^3. What if the piece of coal could warm someone else up? What if that seed's offspring would go on to spread and feed a massive amount of people? The same applies to all meat and all fruit, and most vegetables. By gaining a slight benefit now, you are potentially robbing over 3^^^3 people of their own slight benefit. Now, is it likely that said animal or seed will go on to benefit so many? Maybe not, but the chance exists. Are you willing to take that chance with a number like 3^^^3?
Well, you should be. Morality should not be solely based of off mathematical formula and cost/benefit analysis. It can greatly help determine a moral course of action, but if that is your motivation for wanting to do the right thing than you have lost sight of what morality is about. The basis of morality is this: Do unto others, as you would have done unto yourself. I, for one, would rather have a dust speck in my eye than be tortured for 50 years. And I wouldn't get 3^^^3 specks of dust in my eye, because none of them did either, they only got one. Even if I was assured of getting that many specks of dust in my eye, (in deep space, of course, because the resulting explosion of dust specks would surely engulf the Earth and possibly most of the Milky Way), I would still do it. Because I choose to save the person in front of me, and fix any negative results afterwards. I choose to stop the wrongdoing directly in front of me, because if everyone did so then everyone would be saved. Do what you can right now. Worry about dust specks later. Help that guy who is getting tortured now.
The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas Should Turn The Fuck Around And Sprint Back To The City, Because Holy Shit That Poor Kid Is Being Tortured So Those Fucks Can Have Air Conditioning. -An improved title, in my opinion.
A massive amount of beneficial outcomes being caused by one person's misfortune is not always justifiable. If they are innocent, it's not justifiable. If they were going to directly and consciously and maliciously cause the massive negative outcome that will result if you do not stop them, then it is arguably justifiable. However, there is only one situation, one context, in which one person's suffering for the benefit of countless others is wholly and totally justified.
You see, someone figured out the answer to this dilemna about 2000 years ago. You've probably heard of Him.
One person's suffering benefitting countless others is a beautiful thing when they choose to suffer of their own free will.
You can choose the 50 years of torture if you wish.....
But only if that person being tortured is you will it be anything other than total evil.