We'd need some criteria to select the chosen ones. What could that be I wonder?

How about this...

We don't choose those who must die but, rather, choose those who must live. Good people, women, children, men to carry on the species, etc. may be selected to live. Let the rest die.

Perhaps if we take this as an ''opportunity'' to create utopia instead of a moral ''burden'' we can make some headway.

Then the motive shifts from something one is being forced to do to something one wants to do. That WOULD be facist.
You would no longer be weighing the lesser of two evils (1 billion vs everyone), instead you are weighing the loss of 1 billion vs how much mileage you can get from the 1 billion lives lost towards your own vision of how the world should be. Thats facism.
I understand the temptation to want to make those 1 billion deaths mean something, but I have to disagree. Facism has always, always been a bad decision, even with the best of intentions.

It’s just the same. Putting a nice suit on a corpse doesn’t make it breath or smell better. I completely understand the instinct to shy away from the horror and the “silverlining” attitude. Maybe in reality that is the better coping mechanism, but I wonder if it’s the better from a moralistic perspective?

The topic deserves humor because the topic wasn't entirely thought out. Personally i would volunteer to be killed in this instance. I've been held at gunpoint during an attempted robbery and i resisted the two robbers and they went away with nothing. I don't think alot of people who feel they are important are all that important compared to other people. I value veterans and military personell because i feel they have been put in harms way and put in situations that they didn't deserve to be put into let alone the fact that they are defendng this country. But i understand veterans are a separate issue from this topic.

I believe personal value has more to do with how hard you work to help others and also in addition to that how well you treat other people.

I feel this topic is trite but its always fun to argue/philosophize with people.

You mean personally you’d rather ignore the hypothetical in the OP and make up your own. Why? If you think it’s badly thought out or trite then why post?

What purpose does your post serve for you, me and others? If you don’t like the question posed why respond. How is it different from having a dislike of football yet attending a game to jeer and mock the supporters and players?

What are you thinking?

I’m genuinely interested to see if you know why posted and what kind of response you were expecting from me if any.

Thanks

the same could be said to you for making this forum topic. I've made forum topics before and people tore into me because of the topic. This is a part of philosophizing or arguing or debating. Get used to it. I didn't ignore the hypothetical in the OP and i certainly didn't make up my own. I think this sort of topic is the sort of thing that elitist like to thnk about and the way it was phrased in the op i thought it was trite.

that was meant for i like sushi. I'm not real sure how that message got sent to you. I may have hit the wrong button.

the same could be said to you for making this forum topic. I've made forum topics before and people tore into me because of the topic. This is a part of philosophizing or arguing or debating. Get used to it. I didn't ignore the hypothetical in the OP and i certainly didn't make up my own. I think this sort of topic is the sort of thing that elitist like to thnk about and the way it was phrased in the op i thought it was trite.

I didn't ignore the hypothetical in the OP and i certainly didn't make up my own. — Christian

My mistake! I guess I was just taken in more by the manner of the reply than the content. You chose to exterminate the human race via suicide. Why?

You find it too “elitist” for your taste? What exactly do you mean by this?

Thanks

It’s just the same. Putting a nice suit on a corpse doesn’t make it breath or smell better. I completely understand the instinct to shy away from the horror and the “silverlining” attitude. Maybe in reality that is the better coping mechanism, but I wonder if it’s the better from a moralistic perspective? — I like sushi

You're right but what choice do you have? The scenario is like suicide and I suppose if we have to go why not in our best suit?

What I meant was it may not be best to ignore the horror by dressing it up as a treat. To look at the death of a billion people as an “opportunity” has practical purpose but seems somewhat against human morality simply to guard the self from a sense of guilt.

I think that people have been unfair to you. The humour is to be expected, and I'm okay with that, but what I take issue with is the criticism that your thought experiment shouldn't be taken seriously if we have our serious philosophy hat on, as opposed to our jester hat. My serious answer would be that I would probably kill a billion people, because I think I would rather it be the case that humanity live on. That says something about my values and my priorities, and the cost I would be willing to accept in order to shape the world according to my overriding preference.

I expected the kind of answers I’ve had. Although if I’m honest I’ve never had quite such wide spread denial of the question as I have on this forum.

There is going to be a third thread tying these questions together. Just not had time to do it yet.

Also, the question was not just about choosing to have one billion die, it was more about having to make the choice and the kind of thoughts that flood our mind - the more emotional responses and the attempts to logically make a choice; as we’ve seen there is always the tendency to reframe the question to make it more appealing too.

I think there's a trend to be dismissive of thought experiments. I think this kind of misses the point.

And yes, it is irritating when people try to get away with breaking the rules. "Let's ignore the spirit of the thought experiment and look for a loophole!".

And it is this that brought me to post the two questions I have.

If I’d just posted the one I’m planning to prior to both of these posts I’d have heard “I don’t do that!” and been unable to show my thinking behind these hypotheticals. Inevitably people will be annoyed too for feeling like they’ve been led into a trap.

It’s going to be interesting to see what people make of my arguments for hypothetical positions and the dynamics of social interactions upon moral sensibilities.

Anyway, no more posts here from me unless absolutely necessary ;) I’ll save it for the next thread I make. Comedy is something we clutch for when tough choices are presented; why this is is a whole other package I hope to unwrap.

I'll just announce this thing to the world .
I'll kill those billion lives who were likely the first to defend themselves in anyway possible.
I'll lead the human race with those who were ready to die instead of the others so that humanity stays with humans.
P. S. I know this is not practical. I choose this kind of answer in the case where the question too is not practical. Any thing similar to this purpose can also be chosen

And then I’d ask you to consider exactly the same question with this option removed and see where it takes you (if you’ve not delved deep enough already that is!)

The “practicality” of getting the information was certainly not part of the hypothetical. The issue for you to judge by yourself, in your own manner (if you wish to!) is why this is the best option over other possible options and if removed what would, as you put it, be “any thing similar” (?) ... and again, I’m not really asking for a public declaration I’m more intrigued in the process of thought and the emotional conflict.

Thanks for the reply :)

I’ve been attempting to answer this in the spirit of the inquiry, but I keep coming up against some issues.

My first reaction was ‘here’s a perfectly good reason why I would never be world leader’. The responsibility for selecting individual lives to end in order to continue humanity as a whole is not something I would even come close to accepting. My reluctance to lead or to make permanent decisions for others is a character trait I have long ago come to terms with, especially as a parent and in my career. Even if, for whatever highly improbable reason, I found myself in the position of being the world leader, it’s not a decision I would take on alone. This is a decision that must be made for humanity as a whole, and therefore by humanity as a whole.

Having said that, my decision has become this:

I would call for volunteers, but would ensure their names be forever acknowledged and recorded for posterity, and their family (or nominated beneficiary) would receive a significant financial benefit. Whatever dollar amount would be a small price to pay for the continuation of humanity (I would assume that as a singular world leader, I could command quite a sum). The number of volunteers would be updated live, so that those considering whether or not they would volunteer would be complicit in the knowledge that if the 1 billion isn’t reached in time, they will all die anyway. And all of it would be made public, streamed live, whatever it takes so that all of humanity is aware of the significance of this act. And, of course, I would be the first to add my name to the list.

The only leadership I could offer in this situation is to have faith in the ultimate altruism of humanity, because otherwise would we really be worth saving?

This was probably not what you were chasing, but every other thought led to inaction for me.

Thanks for giving it so much thought.

The point you move past our inaction I wouldn’t expect to be revealed publicly. I doubt you’d remain inactive if your suggestion was taken off the table - which it was as you’ve placed the decision, in part at least, out of your hands.

I guess I figure there’s only so much I can do and still be true to myself. But hey, if you’re gonna put me in charge, that’s what you get...

And I doubt the decision would ever be completely in my hands, no matter how you try to force or contrive the situation. I don’t think that’s how the world works - and I get that it’s only a thought experiment - but the minute anyone besides me finds out what’s about to go down, people will have their own opinions on what should be done. They certainly wouldn’t leave it up to one person to decide for them, no matter who they are.