value of many over one?

Sunspot5254

So I'm curious. I read this somewhere but I don't remember where. It was saying that if you're lost in the woods or your family is starving or any other reason you'd need to hunt, you should kill a deer instead of many squirrels or rabbits so you harm less beings. So if you have the choice between a hamburger or shrimp, you should pick the hamburger because the cow probably fed many instead of eating many animals at one sitting.

Following this, is it acceptable for us to do that with humans? Say we're all at a POW camp and we're told that we're all going to be executed unless we all agree to out our names into a hat, in which the drawn name would be the only one killed. Would you risk the sacrifice of another to save yourself and others?

Also what if there are two busses about to roll over a cliff at the same time? You know for a fact you can save one and you know that one bus is filled with 30 animals (a mix of dogs and squirrels and such) and the other has an adult human on it? What if the one human was a child?

I'm not trying to be difficult. Sorry for the hypotheticals

federica

The needs of the one, outweigh the needs of the many...
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one...

I think it's something out of Star Trek, to be honest.
I think every situation is different. You can't generalise and the factor should be taken on a case-by-case basis, in my opinion....

@Sunspot5254 said:
So I'm curious. I read this somewhere but I don't remember where. It was saying that if you're lost in the woods or your family is starving or any other reason you'd need to hunt, you should kill a deer instead of many squirrels or rabbits so you harm less beings. So if you have the choice between a hamburger or shrimp, you should pick the hamburger because the cow probably fed many instead of eating many animals at one sitting.

>

Yes, I believe HH DL said something along these lines...

Following this, is it acceptable for us to do that with humans? Say we're all at a POW camp and we're told that we're all going to be executed unless we all agree to out our names into a hat, in which the drawn name would be the only one killed. Would you risk the sacrifice of another to save yourself and others?

No, I am convinced I would put myself forward, if there was a guarantee my action would save others, for sure.

Also what if there are two busses about to roll over a cliff at the same time? You know for a fact you can save one and you know that one bus is filled with 30 animals (a mix of dogs and squirrels and such) and the other has an adult human on it? What if the one human was a child?

I'm not trying to be difficult. Sorry for the hypotheticals

>

As a Buddhist I would save the Humans, because they are already members of the most favourable realm and may do good as a result of being given a second chance.
There would be hope in my heart that the animals would be reborn into a more fortunate existence.

I forgive the hypotheticals, even though they're generally unfavoured.

robot

Shrimp have evolved to be eaten. Just like crab, deer, and countless other species. Without predation they would not have evolved to their present form. Pretty basic biology I think.
Why do humans have to feel the need to rise above nature? Can't we accept our place in the world without all the angst?
The food part of the OP I get the other hypothetical situations not so much.
I'm human, I'd save the human every time.

Buddhadragon

After watching "Sophie's choice" when I was a child, I abhorr POW camp hypotheticals.
I tend to consider problems only when they pose a real threat in my life.
Till then, lucky me I don't burn my neurons over hypotheticals...

Hamsaka

I don't think we have as many choices as implied in those hypotheticals. I don't believe we have as many choices as we think we do in general.

The self preservation instinct trumps all other choices at the level of impulse and instinct, so . . . and that extends to 'my kind'.

Being the 'ideal Buddhist' is like being the ideal human being, to me. Nothing about our humanity is left out or shunned by the teachings, not even murder.

I can't say what I'd actually do in those hypotheticals, the decisions would come from a place I don't normally access in my boring, drama-free middle aged life. I'm such a party pooper that it feels silly to even wonder what I'd do