1

I have the power to destroy the world, what should I do if I need to sacrifice the whole world to save someone important to me?

This is an important issue, let me know what you think.

There is no right or wrong, all need specific evidence to convince me.

The world depends on your answer !

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    Simply nosense: if you "sacrifice the whole world" there will be neither you nor the "important person". Thus, only one horn of the dilemma is viable, and thus no dilemma at all.
    – Mauro ALLEGRANZA
    Commented Dec 5 at 9:53
  • 4
    Duplicate of most trolley questions ever asked on this site.
    – tkruse
    Commented Dec 5 at 10:06

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
2

In this situation, you seem to have no capacity to do right. You are either killing many or you are killing one. Neither is good.

If you are directly causally responsible for the deaths in both options, and not you simply internalizing making a decision that actually would be made by forces outside of yourself, I would propose that the correct option is to postpone making the choice indefinitely. Or, if at all possible, to remove yourself from the situation, preventing either outcome.

It may simply be that someone would die without your action at all. This is not your moral responsibility. You can intervene yourself to try to save them, but that may be beyond your individual power, and you shouldn't beat yourself up over it.

However, if you're asking if you should murder a whole bunch of people to save someone important to you, the answer is clearly "no, of course you shouldn't", and if you're asking if you should murder someone you care about in order to save a whole bunch of people, the answer is clearly "no, of course you shouldn't".

Improve this answer
1

From a philosophical point of view you may answer your question in the light of the categorical imperative of Kant:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

Improve this answer
4
  • 1
    What is the good of a universal law if the whole world is gone?
    – Philomath
    Commented Dec 5 at 9:05
  • 1
    @Philomath Kant’s maxime prompts to decide how to act before(!) the whole world is gone.
    – Jo Wehler
    Commented Dec 5 at 9:10
  • 1
    But what is the good of a universal law if my whole world is gone?
    – Philomath
    Commented Dec 5 at 9:17
  • 1
    @Philomath We aren’t applying any universal laws after our decision, only before. Whether we choose to or not, the world exists when the logic is done to decide whether the world will continue to do so.
    – controlgroup
    Commented Dec 5 at 18:18
1

Whether you like it or not, the World operates in such a way that you cannot be in a position to have such a delima. And if you could be in such a position, then you wouldn't have that delima.

Improve this answer
0

I mean saving that person won't be much good if the world is gone*; You'd both die very quickly (you didn't say you were immortal).

*There are two interpretaions of "sacrifice the world" that I can think of:

  1. You literally destroy the planet Earth. You, the special person, and everyone and everything else dies instantly
  2. You sacrifice all life/humans currently alive. You won't last long without any other people unless you know how to farm and be ENTIRELY self-sustainant, and if you've destroyed all other life too even that wouldn't be possible.
Improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .