[Boolean11]

WHAT IS MORE MORAL?

Take this paradox:

You have the opportunity to help people a 100 people but time and finance are limited. In this paradox you could feed all the 100 people and feel that you've accomplished something good after you've exhausted your efforts doing so. However the drawback is that you'll do this only for a single day when they get to eat a meal, after that they will return to suffering and the whole shebang continues.

The second case is that out of those 100 people, you could chose 5 to "teach to fish", in other words invest installing life skills that prevent the whole shebang from ever happening in the long run. However in doing so you'd have to select the people to help, based on such "crude" (judgmental) aspects as intelligence and health; you'd need to judge them on those terms since the success rate is bounded by those terms. This is practically playing "god" with their lives choosing who should be aloud to live and die. Its a like a chaotic titanic scene except there are no rules to follow beyond what you say.



Option 1 will live all your efforts are in vain long term wise. All those people you help die eventually. On the plus side you would have done something just since you wouldn't have picked favorites. You see the most happy amount of faces whilst you do it.

Edits: I think most of you choose this option if you consider thinking about it since not that many people appear to have a long term interest in seeing how their efforts turn out

Whereas, Option 2 lives you with horrid memories of the 95 you chose to die. You kind of think you made mistakes in your choices but a burden will loom over you. On the bright side you would possibly get 5 people who survive till old age.

Edits: The other flaw about option 2 is that you don't how those you decide to save will turn out to be. This is if you pick people at random without any consideration for potential. So the question is:how will you know those to choose?(they aren't all the same)

What's your choice? I think none of these options are inherently pleasant, but it feels like there is still a lot more to this.

[Thomas60]

I will crude and make a judgement.
I need to expect some long-term influence with the people I save.

[OldManRivers]

The problem I see is this is an unreal situation. No one person has the total responsibility in such a situation. So with this being artificial and grandiose, there is no real life solution.

There have been cases where one person or family had resources in war or disaster areas, shared all they had, suffered and andi n some cases (during WW II) died with them. There have probably been cases where the better-off kept their resources hidden, but who remembers and praises selfish bastards, anyhow?

[Gnothi Seauton]

I would choose the second case mainly because there's a possibility that those 5 would spread the seed of wisdom and compassion towards other people and teach others what I taught them. This can cause a chain reaction in which hopefully more than 5 people would benefit in the long run.

[L]

I would choose the second case mainly because there's a possibility that those 5 would spread the seed of wisdom and compassion towards other people and teach others what I taught them. This can cause a chain reaction in which hopefully more than 5 people would benefit in the long run.

Same choice and same reasoning as this. I help these 5 people with the stipulation that they in turn help 5 people each. Then, hopefully, the chain continues.

[Pavane]

Well I don't think 95 people would all die instantaneously after you choose your 5 people. Even though it isn't guaranteed I'd teach 5 people to fish so they would hopefully teach some others. Option 1 is a waste of resources and time, and in the end they all die. And because I know how to fish, I would use the 5 people (and whoever the might teach) to help me get food for everyone. Problem solved.

[Boolean11]

The problem I see is this is an unreal situation. No one person has the total responsibility in such a situation. So with this being artificial and grandiose, there is no real life solution.

There have been cases where one person or family had resources in war or disaster areas, shared all they had, suffered and andi n some cases (during WW II) died with them. There have probably been cases where the better-off kept their resources hidden, but who remembers and praises selfish bastards, anyhow?

How is it unreal might I ask? If you want to translate a little bit more to reality the premises remain the same. You don't have all the money yet if you must help what are you going to do?

[Boolean11]

Well I don't think 95 people would all die instantaneously after you choose your 5 people. Even though it isn't guaranteed I'd teach 5 people to fish so they would hopefully teach some others. Option 1 is a waste of resources and time, and in the end they all die. And because I know how to fish, I would use the 5 people (and whoever the might teach) to help me get food for everyone. Problem solved.

Ok, a little added translation, think of the 95 people being in ultra poverty and a few months away from death. Well the odds are severely against them...

[Iustinus]

Option 2. If Option 1 is selected, then the rescue is temporary for all. If Option 2 is selected, then the rescue is permanent for a few.

[HippoHunter94]

Maybe I've been thinking too heavily about how rich people are somehow evil, but the only problem with number two is that the perspective fishermen might very well hold their power over others, assuming they save the other ninety-five, and trade their skills for various favors. Other than that, it's still the better option. I mean, unless the first included fruits and such where the people could harvest more food from seeds and such, the latter is better.