Could you kill one for the good of the many?

If murdering one innocent person could bring about an end to world hunger, would you be prepared to do it? Dilemma!
Support me on Patreon: / lindybeige
Next question: If God appeared to you in a series of vivid and moving dreams, and told you to leave everything behind, travel alone to the Red Sea and become a fisherman, what would you do?
What if you were told to sacrifice your child?
Buy the music - the music played at the end of my videos is now available here: lindybeige.ban...
Buy tat (merch):
outloudmerch.c...
More videos here:
All Lindybeige: • All Lindybeige
Lindybeige: a channel of archaeology, ancient and medieval warfare, rants, swing dance, travelogues, evolution, and whatever else occurs to me to make.
▼ Follow me...
Twitter: / lindybeige I may have some drivel to contribute to the Twittersphere, plus you get notice of uploads.
Facebook: / lindybeige
My website:
www.LloydianAsp...
Channel page:
/ user "Lindybeige"

[@hebl47]

I think this would be a better question for Lloyd: Would you salute to the French flag, kiss the grave of Napoleon and proudly sing La Marseillaise in order to save one Englishman from certain death? You know that the person you're saving is a good person and all of your 3 deeds are streamed live for everyone to see.

[@imperator5014]

That man would die a martyr.

[@bitterleafcastle1552]

A good englishman would sacrifice his life to spare Lloyd from this horrible fate.

[@bnap3221]

Rad Derry racist

[@Chillerll]

Why not. Napoleon was lit. He was fighting for the ideals of the French revolution.

[@PaddyInf]

"I once punched a man in the face for speaking French". - Gene Hunt

[@aussiebloke609]

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

[@BlueFlash25]

"Doing what´s right, isn´t always the best solution" - Me

[@ulalaFrugilega]

How happifying to find a Grouchquote here!

[@impossiblejonathan9650]

Lloyd said: "If I were a utilitarian psychopath I would say " Yap, I'll do it because total amount of human happiness goes up and perhaps I'll be a hero." Also Lloyd: "Yes, I will murder the innocent person in order to end hunger in the whole world because that way I will A) increase the total sum of human happiness in the world which I think is a good thing, B) will have saved far more lives [...], C) the hero thing." Plot twist: Lloyd is a utilitarian psychopath.

[@lysanderhoppe765]

On the other hand he also says he has no problem with hypocricy ;) ...As do all utilitarians, I believe.

[@ThePheonixon]

Roland Baader not Peter Singer!!

[@yektaagra741]

No, a utilitarian psycho + B) and(...)

[@YinYangLogo]

@@ThePheonixon High key though - Peter Singer, last time I read some of his work (last year), was definitely a hypocrite. The only philosophies he's written about that aren't complete rubbish were his ideas regarding killing and eating animals. Dude says that you can't kill animals, but you can 'abort' a three year old child (not as simple as that obviously, but sad to say I'm not being very hyperbolic).

[@erikthomsen4768]

Psychopathy does not necessarily equal pure evil. But I suppose we could always go with the Hollywood stereotype. Still doesn’t make the rest of us by virtue of being different.

[@jimbob3332]

Finally, Lloyd tackles the Trolley problem.

[@igorchistyakov8876]

Not really. I'd say he took a simpler case, dodging the hard part of it.

[@michaelm3691]

4chan already did that. You slide it accross both tracks.

[@jonathangartland402]

If this is the 'push one person to certain death to save 5 from the runaway trolly'... I discovered I was part Vulcan when my wife hadn't even finished the question and i started reciting “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

[@Tjalve70]

I have never understood why the "trolley problem" is an ethical dilemma. The only way it could be, is if you pretend that not performing a spesific action is not an action in itself. So let me ask you: Let's assume that your toddler has fallen onto a railroad track, and a train is rapidly coming this way. I happen to stand just next to your toddler, and I can easily save it with no risk to myself whatsoever. And that I am the only one who is able to save your toddler. And let's assume that I choose not to do so. So your toddler dies. Would you blame me for my inaction? Would you report me to the police for not saving your child? We are assuming there is video footage proving that I didn't do anything. Would you assume that your country's legal system would find me guilty of this child's death? If you can answer Yes to any of those questions, then you accept that not performing an action is considered an action in itself. And that proves the "trolley problem" is not an ethical dilemma.

[@UnimatrixOne]

@@Tjalve70 good point!

[@Leftyotism]

"Willing" is exactly the correct word, just look at the etymology of it.

[@bigwes617]

"That's what I assosciate with willing." Look I love etymology and correctly defining words but I would also argue the the understanding of language is a bit more nuanced than that and the common parlance/vernacular takes precedence.

[@amazoncouch7116]

No I'd say that's right as you could be willing to kill someone but not able to bring yourself to do it

[@Leftyotism]

@@bigwes617 What are you even trying to say? Could you be less unclear? ...

[@fwr9574]

@@Leftyotism He was quite clear

[@Leftyotism]

@@fwr9574 Oki.

[@SangoProductions213]

Soul could have been interpreted as "your moral being." Just based on the question's context. It didn't have be interpreted as a literal metaphysical entity.

[@miinyoo]

I'm in your camp. Your soul whether a manifestation of God or your interpretation of the universe, both are judging you on your actions. Neither cares if you live or die. You may care that you left a positive or if you're a sociopath or psychopath or some puppet of either of the previous, a negative impact on the timeline that is everyone's lives, but in both scenarios the agency is yours. It's up to you and what you do with the meat you've been provided.

[@SangoProductions213]

@@miinyoo Um. Yeah. No.

[@krixpop]

to Lindybeige: would you pretend to be a Frenchy for one day to save the world .!

[@zoopdterdoobdter5743]

Clarification? Must one speak French, or merely act out the worst 'rude waiter' stereotype imaginable? 🧐

[@krixpop]

@@zoopdterdoobdter5743 yup, ur right m8 - clarification: - if you think our waiters are rude you should see the manager... - lol, jokes aside speaking French , Klingon or etc. as a stereotype is merely a figure of speech . French speech ... French ... especially for Lindy 😎

[@coltonmcpherron7607]

I read "soul" as more metaphorical given the context. Like is there anything worth corrupting the foundation of the personal identity you have built?

[@burtlangoustine1]

Lloyd lost his soul when he wet his bed for the 666th time.

[@matthewcallahan7209]

It might be an American expression, but I have heard the term "very soul" to mean your fundamental moral (or ethical) beliefs

[@YouTubalcaine]

There is only one thing for which I'd sacrifice my soul - love. For without love, what is the value of a soul?

[@Eoraph]

@@burtlangoustine1 at the 667th time he found it in the laundry

[@cmelton6796]

My answer on the killing to end world hunger thing: Nice try, Thanos, I won't be your hit man.

[@vlad_ussr8390]

It's like the train question, would you kill 1 person to save 5 people or let the train move and kill 5 people

[@Memovox]

"Yes, because I would also increase the amount of good people." -Sure, but you would also increase the amount of potential Stalin's.

[@durielvs]

stalins whas good (?)

[@nicodemoboccia5090]

Well, if no one died of hunger ever again stalinism wouldn't be nearly as bad, exept for the gulags

[@merpius]

The ratio of good people to potential Stalins is very high. So, still increases the relative number of good people in the world.

[@flaviusbelisarius7517]

@@nicodemoboccia5090 there's still the ethnic cleansing via forced migration, constant surveillance, assassination of any who oppose and lack of democracy

[@derpimusmaximus8815]

Yeah, but maybe if Stalin had actual equals as rivals, he'd have been far too busy scheming against them to actually take power himself, and thus more potential Stalins would lead to less autocratic rule.

[@theoacegump9354]

I wouldn't be able to, and I think it's unfair. I would probably spend the rest of my life trying to end hunger to try to make myself feel better. If the question was "If you could sacrifice yourself to end world hunger, would you do it?" I would have to think about it. I know I'm selfish... I like these videos, they're what I think about anyway but it's interesting to hear what other people think.

[@theoacegump9354]

@Jason Buford good question, but still no. It's the direct murder that bothers me. What would you do?

[@Trombi01]

@Jason Buford Eh, it doesn't say anything about how the worldhunger is solved, so that is a bit leaping to conclusions. The method might as well be that 60% of humans become sterile, so eventually there are so few people, that starvation isn't a problem anymore. Or any other method that is not so nice, as well as all the nicer ones. This entire book is kinda filled with questions, that are rather vague.

[@goldilock4199]

If it would solve hunger *forever*, I'd 100% do it, but the book doesn't state that so I probably wouldn't since in a couple of years the hunger would come back

[@nesano4735]

This guy has the best video endings.

[@MattRoszak]

How about the more reasonable version of this question - would you murder a leader who's about to take an action that you know is going to lead to the deaths of thousands of innocents?

[@Bexebeche]

Someone making some impossible wishes come true in exchange for a soul would be a pretty good evidence for existence of a soul to me.

[@bobobobo3142]

If I have choice, I would rather link myself and I am saying this from my heart.

[@slick_slicers]

Lots of people have laid down their lives for others, I’d do it for my wife or my children in a heartbeat. And no I’m not religious, I just love them, more than I love myself.

[@TheValinov]

i'm glad you have found someone to fight for ... i couldn't find someone worth it since 29 years.

[@passionfruitfruit]

@@TheValinov but you still have yourself to fight for. Don't give up.

[@TheValinov]

@@passionfruitfruit fighting for myself isn't enough for me. i need a counterpart. yeah, chasing this dream is not easy but i won't give up!

[@passionfruitfruit]

@@TheValinov I do understand you. But YOU are the basis to build a relationship. Acknowledge your strong points and try to love yourself a little. Everything starts from within. Your love of life will shine thru and attract the right person to share it with. You sound like a sensitive, kind person, I wish you that you will find your happiness.

[@aceofspades477]

I don't think people would consider the person who has to kill a hero, they would consider the innocent who died a hero.

[@Traderjoe]

Laying down your life to benefit others would probably be along the line of a soldier seeing a hand grenade was tossed into the trench where the rest of his platoon was oblivious to it and he jumps on it and uses his body to absorb the explosion and thus saving his platoon. Would you do that, if there were no other options available?

[@DeaconParsons]

No, because killing an innocent person is never an option. The promise that doing so would end hunger is a false promise.

[@RagingBlast2Fan]

You definitely could, but would you?

[@VioletDeathRei]

Presumably I'm not one of the people facing hunger so I don't get much out of it other then guilt. You are going to have to at least offer me a pat on the back or something to get me to off some innocent person, least if I was starving I could say I didn't have a choice.

[@Ashalmawia]

one thing I think you missed: it would have to be the case that this was for some reason the _only_ way to end world hunger (or at least, the least worst way.)

[@widgren87]

In regards to the "Innocent" question it brings to mind one of the scariest phrases ever, For the Greater Good... But is it really a good thing that all those people live when that might just be the reason for the lack of food to begin with, and honestly if that choice was between say my nephew who I know and love and thousands I have never meet... Then he will most likely live.

[@toropazzoide]

I agree, who the victim is makes a huge difference imho. I'd burn the rest of the world for my SO without remorse. But a stranger? If killing him/her helps many, I'd be willing and more than happy to do so.

[@widgren87]

@@toropazzoide Yeah...

[@deluth4638]

Perfect! widgren87 knows what's real.

[@widgren87]

@@deluth4638 Well, thanks.

[@evangelosvasiliades1204]

I mean, the question wouldn't be very interesting if everyone gave the same answer. Though admittedly it in large part comes down to how collectivist vs individualist the person asked is.

[@capnstewy55]

I immediately said yes, guess I'm a utilitarian psychopath. Thanks Lloyd.

[@JimCullen]

Surprised Lloyd never raised the question of _who_ this innocent person is. The equation changes drastically if we're talking about murdering a child versus a 90 year old, or your own mother versus someone who, despite being technically innocent, you intensely dislike, or a complete stranger you know nothing about.

[@albertomarcantonio3179]

Well, that is basically the plot of "crime and punishment"

[@cooledtie2460]

World Hunger is linked to, War and Violence, Disease, limited Mental and Physical Health, Poor living conditions and restricted Education. What would you solve and who would believe you is the question.

[@hamobu]

Let me rephrase your question: Should we sacrifice few random people for medical research that would save many more? No, because then you are living in distopian world where people are are sacrificed for medical research.

[@drumer960]

That is utilitarian too. The idea that risk of becoming a random medical experiment would decrease happiness by a greater amount than the medical advances would benefit it.

[@hamobu]

@@drumer960 would it really? That's like saying "if we all lived in prison we would be a lot safer from crime and terrorism." There's negative utility simply by living in a society where you or your kids could be randomly taken, tortured and killed even if that never happens to you and you benefit from medical research.

[@hamobu]

EDIT: read your comment again and realized that you are saying the same thing.

[@deathbytouch4252]

I’d agree as long as the person is ok with the sacrifice and the method be as painless as possible

[@sysop6165]

But what if this one innocent person would normally find a way by its own to solve the world hunger problem...

[@sysop6165]

or this person would do something way more important, preserve the earth from getting struck by a massive comet, as an example

[@swl6218]

We did it already and due to a clerical mishap killed the wrong person. Robs first day on the job. These things happen.

[@JohnyG29]

Wouldn't wiping out world hunger lead to an exponential growth in the human population of this already vastly overpopulated planet? If so, that would do massive damage to life on Earth and be a vastly worse option than murdering one person. So this question really boils down to "Would you do an awful thing to enable an even worse thing to happen?" What a silly question.

[@tuanoful]

I'm with you, made my own comment. No hunger means an explosion in population. And about what Martin Vargic said, the explosion of population would come from the less privileged. So I wouldn't do it. It would bring a MUCH MUCH bigger problem.

[@samschwinghammer6892]

There's another potential approach you didn't mention Loyd, explaining the situation to the person you'd have to murder. If they truly are a good person, then there's a chance that it ends up being a form of self sacrifice on his or her part.

[@TheAlison1456]

I would never find myself in a situation in which I couldn't want to kill someone less than this situation.

[@stillkickin3919]

Now I want to ask: Would you be willing to let thousands die of hunger in the time you spend contemplating if you would kill an innocent person to end world hunger?

[@Dleihs]

The real question is what if that one person were you?

[@vegankowalski5193]

Could you kill one for the good of the many? Yes. what ever you say.

[@JohnsonTheSecond]

depending on how many and who are the many Would you kill an innocent little girl for the good of two who picked themselves over the many?

[@rwbimbie5854]

If the US kills 10 thousand poor people, 10 million poor people could get more aide each. If the US killed 10 mil poor people, 290mil would be better off. Charity cant eliminate poverty in 10 years. Welfare cant eliminate poverty in 10yrs. BULLETS CAN, and in just 1 year. What is the California plan to deal with *_STREET FECES & PLAGUE RATS_*_ homeless flood_ ?

[@vegankowalski5193]

@@rwbimbie5854 if you say so

[@vegankowalski5193]

@Jason Buford thanos was the good guy. change my mind.

[@rwbimbie5854]

@@vegankowalski5193 I'm not saying so, Thanos is. This vid explores the QUANDARY of Thanos'ing some to save others. Killing ONE to save ONE is probably wrong, but what if Thanos Snap was 20% to save 80%?

[@projectjayme1109]

I have that book! I brought it to the bar tonight to use with my friends. That’s exciting.

[@kiltedbroshar4187]

People give their lives for many reasons. For friendship for love for an ideal. And people kill for the same reasons.

[@hindsight9213]

i personnaly dont think i could because i cannot see the millions of people being saved but i can see the face of the innocent person i dont think i could bring myself to do it

[@Yali_]

I have a couple of follow-up questions for you Lloyd: Would your answer differ depending on the manner of the execution? For example, shooting someone at a distance using a sniper rifle, where you may feel slightly more disconnected from the other person and the act itself; or, say, stabbing someone with a blade, face-to-face, where you may _feel_ the act more, and witness close up all the victim's emotions. My second question is: would your answer differently, depending on who the innocent person was? For example, killing an older person who had lived a happy, productive life, who had done a lot of good for the planet; or killing a young child of, say, 8, who was kind, enthusiastic, and had their whole life ahead of them.

[@Akaelai]

I'm a utilitarian psychopath and wouldn't do it, because these sorts of questions are always traps designed to get you arrested. If anyone asks you this in real life, they're a cop.

[@TheAndrew1987]

if a person is standing in the way of stopping world hunger i assure you they are not innocent

[@trippyfizzy9911]

Omgg how could i just only found youu love this kind of videos

[@n-steam]

Ending hunger for everyone, for all time, is only going to lead to another evil (overcrowding and overpopulation). I'm not responsible for everyone's food supply. I am responsible for who I do or do not personally kill.

[@robbeyer-bowden2097]

overpopulation is a myth.

[@silvesby]

@@robbeyer-bowden2097 Yeah, interestingly, developed countries tend to have trends towards less birth rates as time continues.

[@AcolyteofRlyeh]

@@silvesby Not entirely true tho. Especially not in "developed" socialist countries, where people are paid to have kids. Which is why single mothers are on the rise over here.

[@igorchistyakov8876]

Yeah, kind of, but not really. Poorest countries, where mass hunger is more of a thing, tend to have the fastest growing populations nonetheless, while more "well-fed" ones have declining childbirth. Guess, correlation doesn't always mean causation. Or even direct correlation itself to start with. So nope, your rationale is invalid, I'm afraid.

[@AcolyteofRlyeh]

@@igorchistyakov8876 You don't understand my rationale, if you think anything you wrote makes it invalid. Socialist countries tend to incentivize childbirth. You know, by taxing people with no children and giving the money to people with children who otherwise could't afford to spit out one child after the other. Like, the reasoning is the same as in poor countries, more children, means more chance of survival for the parents. But I'm sure you had a smirk on your lips and felt good when you wrote that last sentence. ^_^

[@musicalcharge]

How can I be sure that killing this innocent person would solve hunger? Seems to me that if I were presented with this choice, the sheer implausibility of the situation would lead me to question my sanity. There are plenty of murderers who think they're killing for the greater good, when in fact they are not able to correctly perceive reality.

[@connorlastname3034]

Of course, if the person was french, then Lloyd would do it in a heartbeat.

[@SyoaranBarker]

I think precedent is against Lindy on whether or not there are a lot of people willing to give their own lives. Police, EMS personnel, firefighters, Red Cross & Red Crescent volunteers... all of these people and more are willing to put themselves into situations where they run a great risk of injury and/or death in order to serve others. I wouldn't say they *want* to die, and they in fact tend to train and operate such that they minimize the risks, but they are willing to put their lives on the line to save others.

[@NiborDeathridge]

If I can talk to the chosen innocent and ask if they are willing to die, and they agree, then I will without hesitation pull the trigger. However, if sacrifice is not their choice, and they aren't being a threat to others, then no. Life is more than a game of numbers

[@the_godfather9974]

german law says it´s against the dignity of man to quantify human life (and thus objectify it) so effectively it is forbidden to offset life against life. Also because you can´t expect of anybody to make a decision like that. I like both ways of thinking.

[@prospero4183]

So letting someone kill the innocent would be ok. Talk about weaselling out of any responsibility from a thought experiment

[@VioletDeathRei]

Yeah but then that person would be a murderer, so we can collectively decide to kill him and thus right the injustice and end world hunger. Total win-win if you don't think about it too long.

[@auturgicflosculator2183]

@@VioletDeathRei Maybe we should just kill everyone who doesn't agree with ...me, because I'm always right.

[@adrianbrekke1013]

You seem to assume that ending world hunger means everyone will live well-fed lives, but dead people don't experience hunger. It could also mean that people lose their desire to eat, thus increasing starvation.

[@UnimatrixOne]

Better question: If you (and only you) could save 10.000 innocent children with an act of murdering and you will be punished for that, not "be the hero" (and only 1 person would know the truth), would you do it?

[@SasNolan]

Depends who is the target. Ppl are likely to sacrifice unknown rando, than relative/friend/pal

[@TintagelEmrys]

What does it mean to end world hunger? Does it mean that there is always enough food for everyone, or is it something like no one has to eat anymore? I think that should be a part of this question to look at as well

[@jackxiao9702]

A more realistic scenario is: a Nazi guard says he will feed everyone in the death camp bread and soup three times a day for a full week, if you kill one of the prisoners. And you have reason to believe him keeping his bargain because he has offered this deal to another prisoner the prior week.

[@gh0stmast3r]

If without any doubt I knew that killing one would end world hunger then yes, that's a trade I'd be willing to make even if I was the one to die.

[@Heartlesscube7]

Nah dude I'm not going to murder somebody

[@selor9848]

I think in this context, it would be interesting to know, if the innocent person is willing to be killed

[@GlaciusTS]

See, my head went beyond convincing other people that I was actually a hero. I was thinking that the well-being of all those people was more valuable than my own reputation and what people think of me. If I were standing in front of that person and could do so much for so many people, I feel like it would be selfish to think about my own feelings and what people think of me. Hero or not in the eyes of others, it’s one person vs many. The question of whether action is worse than inaction kinda stops sitting well with me when I consider that morals are subjective and how I feel and people feel about me probably shouldn’t matter more than the suffering of all those poor people. Would I have the willpower to go through with it? Revolver in my hand and the person in front of me? I don’t know... I’d like to believe I’m strong enough to suck it up but I’ve never taken a human life, and knowing they were innocent doesn’t help.

[@chrissscottt]

The easy way to do this is to find a 90 year old innocent person with a dignitas contract in a coma on death's door and pull out the plug.

[@johnkidby7948]

So no mention of the fact that this is just an odd rephrasing of the trolley problem? (On a different note, I think if one were to actually come across some other party who were in the business of exchanging souls for extravagant favours and were demonstrably able to hold up their end, it might be a really good idea to get a clear definition of what "selling one's soul" actually constitutes prior to committing, particularly with respect to the mechanism of collection.)

[@CatholicK5357]

I don't think I could ever fully trust someone that is willing to kill an innocent person for any reason. But at least you were honest. I am quite strict on my stance about such questions: it is never okay to harm an innocent to bring about some good because it is never okay to commit evil to do good, since doing that evil would corrupt the very good that was trying to be accomplished. I would rather see mankind die out than to see mankind be willing to become monsters just to save themselves as a whole.

[@Macieks300]

The thing is that there isn't any realistic way to cure world hunger without breaking the universe. Hunger is a consequence of the first law of thermodynamics as you must get energy from somewhere to live.

[@Elmithian]

I would do it, but not for fame or any sort of recognition. And I would still hate having to do it, innocent person or not. But I would still do it, though preferably after all other options were exhausted. I mean, if I could get away with it by only cutting a limb off the person I would pick that over outright murder.

[@Teh-Penguin]

I think assuming the hero position is a false perspective. What I imagine this question implies is that you and only you know it. It's your conscience and everything that happens afterwards is only clear to you and to nobody else. You can't prove it to anyone even if they would see that the world hunger has ceased to be an issue.

[@Mitaka.Kotsuka]

yeah, the book of questions!!! :D

[@valiantredneck]

Unless that one innocent person was oneself.

[@hedylamar1668]

Lindy, could you do a something on the Lanchester business sometime. I don't get it,.

[@hughaskew6550]

This is a situation where the unintended consequences or hidden conditions must be considered. If you end world hunger it would be reasonable to expect the population to explode, which should lead to more hunger -- or, ir hunger is forever abolished, to a very overcrowded world. Conversely, perhaps the solution to ending world hunger is to limit the population to a sustainable level, which might mean that some people currently living would have to die in order to end hunger for the rest.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

In the real world you could find someone who IS a psychopath. ah yes the one and only time its a good thing to have murderous psychopaths standing around

[@TytanTrollMiniatures]

Make it difficult, could you murder a member of your close family? an innocent, but with more weight to you

[@semi-useful5178]

Because I'm Evil, i protect that one innocent person with my life in order to increase the total amount of suffering in the world.

[@greatwhitenorthlife2327]

I think a good title for this series would be "Lloyd Scrutinizes the English Language"! Although quite well I must say.

[@rexremedy1733]

Soul just means that your existence has an eternal component. And if you don‘t believe in an eternal existence of some kind with your actions having eternal consequences for you, whats the point in doing anything then? If on the long run nothing is of consequence, to you, nothing really matters, doesn’t it? Just a question...

[@faknugget92]

Lindy you should do a video on Titanic! Its such a misinformed topic and i think youd tell it really really well

[@DrumCrazy722722]

To decide to kill the innocent person is to assume power of deciding who has the suffering. The question presumably grants the reader this power in the scenario. Having the power and choosing to wield that power are two completely different things, to even make a choice over one or the other is to believe you have the moral capacity to dole out the level of suffering that takes place. People dying from hunger is the truthful unaltered reality. Not being able to accept this reality is the cause of all suffering. Also choosing suffering over suffering will put you in a place where you will have to abandon humble acceptance for a morally superior judgment. The best answer is to accept the power to choose but also remove yourself from both sides of suffering by not deciding. If you do have to decide, I would choose that death from hunger remains because that’s the way things are in the first place and to say otherwise is to exchange suffering for suffering. IMO who has the right to decide which suffering is greater than the other?

[@Aaron_Jensen]

At first I was positive I could murder an innocent person in order to end world hunger, but then I through out an interesting twist. What if the innocent person was my fiancée? At that moment the question became drastically harder for me. I think I'd still be able to do it, but I don't think I'd be alive for very long to see the results.

[@haroldhahn7044]

How could killing an innocent person save millions of people? The writer has a screw lose!

[@teucer915]

I think that if you believe murder is going to lead to a better outcome than not murdering anyone, it is more likely that you're wrong than that you should do the murder, and therefore given me thinking the murder will be beneficial I should still not do it - even though the lives of millions are of course more valuable than of the one.

[@vagabondwastrel2361]

First world countries experience a population decline as their needs get sated. So you could argue from that standpoint that solving world hunger could cause genocide.

[@SamTheEnglishTeacher]

Ending hunger would cause a population boom of low IQ, low consciousness, low impulse control people and would *lower* net human happiness from all the victimisations causes by those people that would otherwise not exist.

[@bryanbird1266]

The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.

[@Jessie_Helms]

Ok Loyd, you need to start selling deeds to your soul in your merch shop lol

[@shadowdeslaar]

Sometimes to Save a life You have to End One

[@fnordianslippers]

Would it make any difference if you could choose the allegedly "innocent person" who gets the bad news?

[@knate44]

No, probably not because it is suspicious once again. In a more well crafted fantasy scene, (like say we are in space, and there is a space virus on a ship I could destroy before it gets to earth, but there's a good chance it could break quarantine) I could see sacrificing myself, or if the innocent other also knew and wanted help doing something painful. But yeah, as is it definitely feels like a Monkey's paw thing where there is no way it'll turn out alright

[@dorkangel1076]

If you’d do it with one person, what about two. Three? Four? You end up with the Thanos solution. Kill half the universe to save the other half...

[@playaspec]

A very interesting question, but a false dichotomy. I assume this question is predicate on the fact that *ALL* other options to end hunger have been exhausted. I see this question more of a way to identify lazy thinking which leads to poor and often ineffectual decision making. Excellent video, excellent channel! Subscribed!

[@Monte1985Cristo]

The question is ... what is the repercussion of solving world hunger this way? Sure, everyone has food to eat, but is it at the expense of fish in the sea; cutting down trees for extra land for grazing and for more crops and using up all the fresh water at the same time? In which case, you might actually doom everyone.

[@declanmorton8504]

If I count as an innocent person I would take my own life to save humanity

[@djscottdog1]

Its just the trolly problem reworded

[@matteodietz9759]

You can simplify this question: Would you take fewer lives to save more? (It is assumed that all people involved are innocent) Well, you can answer this question, dominated by utilitarianism: (-> Yes) Reduced to a classical basic formula, utilitarianism states that an action is morally correct if it maximizes the aggregate total benefit, i.e. the sum of the well-being of all concerned. (Wikipedia) But one can also deny the question if one shares the opinion of Immanuel Kant. According to him, the dignity of a human being is inviolable, according to which one must not make a human being the tool of one's own actions. This is also laid down in some basic laws. I clicked on this video because my class and I think rather utilitarian, but our German teacher makes our life difficult with the philosophies of Kant and I am looking for counterarguments. (I have no problem with "Sapere aude" but with his ethics of duty.) Ideas?

[@sabotabby3372]

in antiquity scarcity had to be tolerated, nowadays it has to be enforced

[@locomotivefaox]

Depends if they were class or not.

[@neogoterra]

Killing one person to save many wouldnt be a easy question for a psychopath, your thinking of sociopath.

[@dedsert9653]

wasn't this q series supposed to be done years ago?

[@crazyassailant]

Bad answer Lloyd!

[@EinKerl3554]

Two questions. One, can you consider yourself the innocent person? Two, how would it end hunger? For example, feeding all the hungry and killing all the hungry are both possible solutions to world hunger but are very, very different.

[@thinkingmachine354]

Ending hunger forever will most likely lead to more devastating problems. What would we all do if we don’t need to eat? We would start seeing larger families and then eventually we would be competing for space. People will have a ton of money to spare to start with then the entire economy will change. Well for some reason, I just think you’ll cause chaos in the long run. Let the natural way of things be the default I say.