this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2025
17 points (90.5% liked)

Would You Rather

816 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to c/WouldYouRather, where we present you with the toughest, most ridiculous choices you never knew you had to make! Would you rather have a third arm that's only useful for picking your nose, or be able to talk to animals but only if they're wearing hats? Yeah, it's that kind of vibe. Come for the absurdity, stay because you've clearly got nothing better to do with your life.

Rules:

  1. Follow dbzer0 rules.
  2. Start posts off with "WYR:"

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

You have a button where you have to pick one of these options. All people are the same age and health. If you choose 2 people to have a painless death, how many more people have to die for you to consider the 1 persons excruciating death instead?

No you can't pick the people.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah its interesting how this question really wasn't answerable seriously for so many people.

I'm actually glad people still have some doubts about right and wrong.

[–] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

If your motivation is reducing human suffering then the two painless deaths are preferable. If your motivation is saving the most lives, then one painful death wins out. It's a tricky one because if reducing human suffering is your primary objective, it leads to the inevitable conclusion that the best option to reduce human suffering is to never exist in the first place, which isn't a very humanist conclusion. I think ethically I'd have to go for the one painful death then, but it would be hard to live with. My heart is telling me the two painless deaths would play on my conscience less.

Exactly. Its just about impossible to answer convincingly for either case.