Lives Equilibrium

In any situation, would you sacrifice 1,000s of people to save 1,000,000s or sacrifice 1,000,000s to save 1000s?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Examples Fiction and Non-Fiction:

There is a plague that everyone has and 1 in 100 people have a special gene that keeps them immune. There is a cure to save 1,000,000s who are plagued but as a result kills the people with this special gene. Would you use the cure?

During WWII, the Manhattan Project was underway. The President decided if the US fought on the mainland of Japan a greater number of Japanese and American soldiers would be lost, on the contrary if we drop the atomic bomb, no American soldiers would be lost and less Japanese civilians would die than the result of fighting on the mainland. Would you drop it?

In the time of the Aztec, their culture was the most known for human sacrifices. They would kill to aid the sun or to guide their king to the afterlife. They would especially perform sacrifices to protect themselves during natural disasters. If sacrifices did protect these people from harm. Would you have been ready to sacrifice to protect your people?

The Iranian Hostage Crisis occurred when an exile leader seeked medical treatment within the US and the American Embassy was immediately taken by force and over 50 Americans were hostages. The demands were to hand over this exile so he could be put to trial but Carter refused. What would you have done?

There is an opportunity to prevent one location during 9/11 from being hit by a plane. Either the Pentagon or the World Trade Center. The World Trade Center resulted in a large scale of deaths and casualties on the other hand The Pentagon resulted in a much smaller number. Which would you have prevented?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are endless possible scenarios but do you think more people outweigh the lives of people who are fewer in numbers or vice versa? Would you like to save as many people as you can or start over with the few people that most wouldn't save?

This is a Paradox, Irony, and a Contradiction. There is no Equilibrium. We say all people are equal but when it comes down to it more lives outweighs the lives of fewer people.

This idea came to me when playing Infamous 2. I hate the good ending by the way.

 

i would save 1000s instead of the 1000000s in any situation.

More people doesn't matter to me always the minority lose to the majority.

 

From what people?

Either decision you make someone will hate you for it.

 

Not really if those people are happy to be the selected few to be alive instead of being dead.

I have my own beliefs that's why I disapprove of yours.

 

You'd be making more people mad then me.

So your saying you would have drop the atomic bomb on Japan to prevent more people from dieing?

 

There are some threats you wouldn't even want to plague your worst enemy with.

Eh...I think it's common that a person or a country tries to make more lives a top priority over fewer ones but is that always the right way to go. Such as the Atomic Bomb dropped in Japan to this day people are still suffering from the radiation. So pretty much it's a debate over "is sacrificing fewer lives to save a whole really worth it."

 

That really supported my view.

Overpopulation is not good. Those are just more people starving, needing shelter, and water.

 

Everyone can not be saved. Inevitably all people will die. So why not let the 1,000,000s die and be able to save the 1000s. A thousand people are much more manageable than a million. This way more people can be helped, less people will starve and die; this world can start over and be shaped and molded in a more kind and generous world without oppression and slavery.

That's the kind of world I would live in. ^_^

 

Eh life isn't fair.

People die without it being their choice.