If your life could be a lot better at the price of a hundred people having just slightly worse lives?

Question

Would that be a price you'd consider acceptable?

Sure, pick the hundred if you'd like...

Some really good answers... but people don't like the solutions.

Answer 1

The reality is that a lot of people--i.e., a lot of Americans--have a way of life that comes at the price of a lot of other people in the world having MUCH worse lives. For decades middle-class and upper-class Americans have been beneficiaries of corporate screwing of people in third world countries that provides us with all our luxuries at the expense of their impoverishment, and we don't care, we don't want to know about it. We live extravagently and wastefully, we consume almost half of the world's natural resources while we're 4% of the world's population (I hope I've got that right, it may be somewhat out of date at this point).

So while individually we might not do what your question proposes, collectively we're doing far worse.

Answer 2

"Slightly worse" is a problem here. Slightly less bizarre in their affluence? That would be acceptable. Corporate wealth is abominable--the US by adminstrative powers to favour the rich is cutting off the rest of us at the knees. Obscene contributions to politicians dictate laws (obligations--payback) that deprive the majority of the most meager essentials. Such a "rich" country, while millions are homeless, children starving, inadequate or no health insurance. Yes, I would like to make the lives of others better at the "price" of putting them out of power.
But I would never, ever consider improving my life at the expense of impacting those who have less than I.
risrosen

Answer 3

That may depend on the quality of the respective lives in question.

I live a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle. I think it would be wrong for me to decrease the quality of other people's lives simply to live more richly, so to speak.

After all, it is a fundamental and nearly universal principle of morality that harm is prima facae wrong, and it would be hard to dispute that making another person's life a little worse would constitute a kind of harm.

However, suppose that I were so elderly that I was unable to care for myself, and further suppose that I lived in an underfunded public nursing home whose conditions were so miserable that most of the residents are lucky if they don't sleep in their own filth.

The significant tax hike that would eliminate such scourges would slightly decrease the quality of life of most of the people in my country. However, it would raise me and other elderly and vulnerable people up from abject misery. How could that be wrong?

Answer 4

That´s a pretty funny question. I think that the lives of far more than 100 people are already slightly worse so that my life can be a lot better.

Answer 5

What if I could decide who the 100 were and I picked absolutely filthy rich people. Eg - Britney spears, her life can't get much worse can it!?

Kidding. My life has been dealt to me for reasons i don't know why. I am in charge of the way my life goes from here...if my life can be slightly better i should improve it myself not hurt others to better it.

Answer 6

No. I would rather my life be bad than for my life to be good at the expense of any number of people. I couldn't live with the guilt.

Answer 7

Can I pick the 100 people??

Answer 8

Nothing is acceptable to me to have others live worse for my benefit. I make my path, and walk it, I will help others but never hurt others. Life is to precious to be so cruel.

Answer 9

Not acceptable the value of my life would in the end be destoryed by my lack of value for others. My Legacy would be worse for it.

Answer 10

Yep I would go for it after picking the British Government to have worst lives.