Suppose that a madman kidnaps you and a stranger. He then gives you a choice: you must either have yourself get tortured mildly by him by having you sit in a room where you have to listen to a loud scream for an hour or have the stranger get tortured severely by him where the stranger will have all his fingers and toes mutilated one by one. He also explains that after you make the choice regarding who gets tortured, he will give you an amnesia pill to make to you forget your choice so that you cannot feel good for saving the stranger from the torture nor could you feel guilty for allowing him to get tortured. This amnesia pill will not make you forget the torture itself if you choose to have yourself tortured though. Who would you choose to have tortured?

I’m a bit divided on this thought experiment because I can see good reason to choose either option. On one hand, I think it is much more likely that we have reason to care about our own suffering than that we have reason to care about the suffering of others. On the other hand, given the greater impact that the torture will have on the strangers life, it may give us reason to choose the more speculative option. On an emotional level, it feels like I should help the stranger because mutilation just makes me sick to my stomach. I would rather die than have to undergo the stranger’s torture. But, I think my emotions are not properly taking into account the amnesia pill and how it would make me forget everything. It’s also worth noting that I choose to do nothing about the immense torture that goes on in the world on a daily basis. I’m not willing to have myself tortured mildly to save others from severe torture because I don’t have to see or think about the immense torture of many who live in this world and the amnesia pill seems to simulate this consideration.