I’ve been listening to a lot of public radio lately, and was inspired to think of some ridiculous hypothetical situations - a la Radio Lab’s “would you throw a fat man at a train to save five other people” (that man would have to be ridiculously fat to stop a train, and therefore way too heavy for me to throw). Since its first incarnation “Would You Rather,” in the context of middle school, I’ve always been quite taken with absurd scenarios. So without further ado, here’s the first:

Let’s wave the magic wand of vagaries and say that somehow, you and you alone are presented with the option of sacrificing yourself for the good of humanity. Everybody on the planet would equally benefit, somehow, through your death. Similar to the story of Jesus, if I may, but going even further - you have the chance to essentially fiat the end to suffering, poverty and disease, improve in the immediate, physical sense for everyone (except you, being dead). In short, you’ve just brought about Paradise Earth. Gorgeous weather, free renewable energy and food for all, etc.

Okay. So the moral thing to do for most would be to hit the sacrifice button, right? I do like to think I would be good-hearted enough to suck it up for humanity and do it.

But maybe with a little hesitation. The thing about this situation is, everybody would benefit equally from this sacrifice. Not just the poor, the people who are starving, the people who need it most. You would also unwittingly benefit the people who are doing quite well - include Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and the like into that mix. All still fine by me, people shouldn’t be penalized because they are rich, and if the poor and needy still benefit, why begrudge the well-to-do for becoming more well-to-do? It’s a slight jump for some of them anyways, so fine, whatever.

You would not just be benefiting the needy and the not-so-needy folk, however - your decision would affect everybody. Criminals, from petty thieves (whatever) to mass murderers (umm…hmm). Child rapists. Genocidal maniacs. Amoral scum like Viktor Bout, the arms peddler. Kim Jong Il. The Janjaweed. Charles Taylor. After you press that button and sacrifice yourself out of existence, these jerks will be free to join the others, basking in the warmth of the sun on the tranquil beaches of the newly Paradised Earth.

For me, the moral thing to do would still be to push the button. Any benefit the “bad people” get from the sacrifice would be outweighed by the overall benefit to the majority of humanity, who (I optimistically assume) are not homicidal assholes. I am of the school of thought that people aren’t born evil, their circumstances make them that way; thus a Paradise environment would be the best crime-fighting tool since the invention of the billy club.

But even given all that, I also know that it would really, deeply annoy me that the worst of humanity would reap the benefits of what I myself could not enjoy. It would violate, on a purely emotional level, my sense of justice, and in fact that of most people, I’d say. Along with victory for the good guys, don’t we usually want to stick it to the bad guys in the end? (That gets into questions of how to separate ‘good’ from ‘bad’, and then we venture into ‘the God Conundrum’, which is a totally different ridiculous hypothetical question altogether). Even if you presuppose that the worst people in the world are themselves victims of circumstance - the fact is, they committed atrocities and crimes against humanity. How do you just let that go?

Further religious tangent: according to mainstream Christian tradition, this hypothetical sacrifice is precisely what Jesus accomplished, on a spiritual level, for humanity. Salvation was theoretically supposed to be for everyone, not just Jesus’ most devoted disciples. Even the treacherous Judas was saved. I’ve mused a lot on how some strongly devout Christians can support things like the death penalty and war, given this tradition. One explanation I offer is that it is really quite difficult to get people to override their sense of justice for the sake of compassion*. That’s why people get indignant about things like social welfare programs and perceived ‘handouts’ to those who didn’t earn it like everyone else (ignoring the circumstances and comparative lack of opportunity for the lower class). Let’s face it, the Jesus story offers a difficult role model for ordinary people to follow, Christians or otherwise. Not because we’re necessarily selfish, horrible people or anything - but simply because we’re people.

Would you hit the button? I think I would. But I know I’d want to take some time beforehand, travel and maybe kick Kim Jong Il’s ass or something, just to feel better about the decision.

* I am making generalized assumptions about people’s behavior from an American, Western-centric cultural view, of course (if the Jesus talk didn’t tip you off already, heh).