And of course, as in the Trolly Problem and others, avoidant answers like "What if the genie is lying?/How did the people get onto the tracks?" where one tries to dodge out of answering the core moral question by poking pedantic holes in the premise are null.
They're not null, they're asking the more important question for actually improving society. The one of "does your idea of morality belong in fairytales, or reality?".
There's no rational, even superficially believable explanation of how your dying would improve the world, and you have no direct control over any of the outcomes other than killing yourself. Accepting the premise means accepting a literally suicidal belief in pure magic/cope.
The actual "moral conundrum" is incredibly trivial, of course one life has less ethical weight than billions and the righteous thing would be to sacrifice yourself. The only difficult part is the "personal conundrum" of if you're willing to lay down and die for a fairytale, which is frankly a poisonous red herring.
My belief is that some people truly are more inclined towards the level of altruism and willingness to self-sacrifice required for the ideal prosperous, high-trust society to thrive. Not just by the circumstances of their surroundings and upbringing, but just as a core fibre of their being. Those are the "good men" out there, and both their success and survival is vital for the best possible societal outcomes.
Too many good men already have the foolish idea that their highest ideal is to die for the sake of their brothers. Where it should be of winning for the sake of their brothers, the dying should be just an incidental practicality. Even if dying for one fight may make winning more likely in one particular instance, it also means forfeiting an entire lifetime of later fights as a loss by default. Plus there's the practical observation that the fabric of society is essentially non-newtonian; it is shaped far more readily by a slow, steady application of pressure (E.g. frog boiling) than it is by sudden, shocking, grand gestures of self-immolation. So survival is an integral part of having the most meaningful impact for good.
Every thought experiment I've ever seen has shown that altruism as an inherent trait doesn't survive natural selection on an even footing, it gets abused into extinction. It only survives if natural altruists are also stronger, more effective, and favor their fellow altruists first over the selfish. The rot we're seeing now has in large part been allowed to happen because the great grandsons of the altruists who found the key to survival were mistakenly taught that the most profound self-sacrifice is just turning yourself into a corpse, instead of the most profound self-sacrifice being the act of forgoing your own joy and turning yourself into an enduring, effective weapon against those who would rather take than give freely.
Skepticism doesn't come easily to good people, and in a perfect society it would often just bring inefficiency with little benefit to anyone. But in a broken society skepticism keeps you out of many pitfalls to failure, and again it is vital that good people learn to succeed if we ever hope to see a better world in the future. So it's about time for good people to consciously ingrain skepticism into themselves and stop telling fairytales without it.
The snake's so low it can't even see over the first paragraph, I literally referred to thought experiments in my 6th. Go on, give me more of your desperate, empty insults. This is just taqiyya at this point.
Oh and to answer your final original question, I know more women than men who would say they'd say yes. It's just believing in fairytales and empty virtue signalling, which are right up their street.
They're not null, they're asking the more important question for actually improving society. The one of "does your idea of morality belong in fairytales, or reality?".
There's no rational, even superficially believable explanation of how your dying would improve the world, and you have no direct control over any of the outcomes other than killing yourself. Accepting the premise means accepting a literally suicidal belief in pure magic/cope.
The actual "moral conundrum" is incredibly trivial, of course one life has less ethical weight than billions and the righteous thing would be to sacrifice yourself. The only difficult part is the "personal conundrum" of if you're willing to lay down and die for a fairytale, which is frankly a poisonous red herring.
My belief is that some people truly are more inclined towards the level of altruism and willingness to self-sacrifice required for the ideal prosperous, high-trust society to thrive. Not just by the circumstances of their surroundings and upbringing, but just as a core fibre of their being. Those are the "good men" out there, and both their success and survival is vital for the best possible societal outcomes.
Too many good men already have the foolish idea that their highest ideal is to die for the sake of their brothers. Where it should be of winning for the sake of their brothers, the dying should be just an incidental practicality. Even if dying for one fight may make winning more likely in one particular instance, it also means forfeiting an entire lifetime of later fights as a loss by default. Plus there's the practical observation that the fabric of society is essentially non-newtonian; it is shaped far more readily by a slow, steady application of pressure (E.g. frog boiling) than it is by sudden, shocking, grand gestures of self-immolation. So survival is an integral part of having the most meaningful impact for good.
Every thought experiment I've ever seen has shown that altruism as an inherent trait doesn't survive natural selection on an even footing, it gets abused into extinction. It only survives if natural altruists are also stronger, more effective, and favor their fellow altruists first over the selfish. The rot we're seeing now has in large part been allowed to happen because the great grandsons of the altruists who found the key to survival were mistakenly taught that the most profound self-sacrifice is just turning yourself into a corpse, instead of the most profound self-sacrifice being the act of forgoing your own joy and turning yourself into an enduring, effective weapon against those who would rather take than give freely.
Skepticism doesn't come easily to good people, and in a perfect society it would often just bring inefficiency with little benefit to anyone. But in a broken society skepticism keeps you out of many pitfalls to failure, and again it is vital that good people learn to succeed if we ever hope to see a better world in the future. So it's about time for good people to consciously ingrain skepticism into themselves and stop telling fairytales without it.
The snake's so low it can't even see over the first paragraph, I literally referred to thought experiments in my 6th. Go on, give me more of your desperate, empty insults. This is just taqiyya at this point.
Oh and to answer your final original question, I know more women than men who would say they'd say yes. It's just believing in fairytales and empty virtue signalling, which are right up their street.