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:
- Follow dbzer0 rules.
- Start posts off with "WYR:"
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Can I have 2 people die the excruciating death?
cant they have both, dieing of a painless death halfway it turns to painful, or vice versa.
3 people die an excruciatingly painful death
Some men just want to watch the world burn.
I think we can all agree that choosing one painful death over one painless one would be wrong (okay, except for Zamboni_Driver), and that's true as you extend to some degree upwards, but any amount of extra deaths looks really bad as a serious answer. Which is probably why you're getting mostly jokes.
I think a painless death and any non-100% chance of a another painless death would be preferable, so I'll say sure to the limit point of 2 deaths. If it was me and I could die more than once, I do it a lot to avoid the excruciating pain, but then again that doesn't really make sense. If it gets to the point where I'm talking about genocide amounts of deaths I guess I'd have to torture the one poor soul.
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.
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.
1 person in pain if it is random two painless I'd I get to choose
I don't push the button