17 million vs 1 million

[Fedel]

I honestly can't understand someone who has a loving family that they're willing to sacrifice along with a million other people in order to prevent the suffering of those who are already long dead.

Like, that decision is honestly unfathomable to me when you consider how much human suffering ( both emotional and physical ) goes on on a daily basis. You'd be preventing the tiniest fraction of human suffering ever to occur in exchange for destroying everybody that's meaningful in your life in the process. The ironic part is that the people who'd be willing to do that don't deserve those people in their lives in the first place.

[Infected Mushroom]

I honestly can't understand someone who has a loving family that they're willing to sacrifice along with a million other people in order to prevent the suffering of those who are already long dead.

Like, that decision is honestly unfathomable to me when you consider how much human suffering ( both emotional and physical ) goes on on a daily basis. You'd be preventing the tiniest fraction of human suffering ever to occur in exchange for destroying everybody that's meaningful in your life in the process. The ironic part is that the people who'd be willing to do that don't deserve those people in their lives in the first place.

This is 100 percent correct

“But remember what we’ve been taught in school. Holocaust is the ultimate evil. I must sacrifice all my family members and friends...”

[Nazis in Space]

I know what these guys would do.

Thread seems like a neat excuse to link this, so I linked it.

[Valentine Z]

Probably not... either because of the Butterfly Effect, or because the universe will set things straight that there MUST be a Hitler.

- Butterfly Effect. What if you killed Hitler, and none of those atrocities happen? Granted, 6 million lives will be saved. I am NOT, under any circumstances, justifying Holocaust, but I must also say that you now have 6 million and more people post-War, and more mouths to feed. Malnutrition and mass starvation, and looting and killing would probably take place.

- For the latter option, I feel that even after you killed Hitler, it would become nothing short of a footnote in history, and will later be replaced by a nobody that will take the role of Hitler. Maybe this nobody was supposed to have no significant contributions to the society (e.g. no family, average Joe/factory worker, no one would miss him), but Fate would call him to become the next Hitler to make sure that the timeline is not disrupted. This is also on top of the fact that you can't just kill Hitler himself. Remember that many, many of the higher-ups and his right hand men were also anti-Semitic, so either the random Average Joe, or someone else will take the role of Hitler and continue the history, right until the end of WW2 with an eventual suicide.

Again, I am not justifying Holocaust in any way, shape, or form, and it is an extremely tragic event and a stain in our history. However, thinking about the possibilities of the post-War scarcity, coupled with the extra 6 million people (remember that it was already a bad-enough situation for the world)... I would say I can't kill him, lest the chance of the world being screwed even more is higher.

Of course, I am also aware that a fraction of the 6 million will probably die due to other acts of war (aerial bombardments, caught in the crossfire,...) but yeah, this is definitely something that doesn't have a clear question unless we know the future well enough.

Copied and pasted from the other thread. In other words, no. While I am mournful that the Holocaust happened, I can only imagine the strain it would have on practically the whole of Europe in terms of food demand. Remember that people in those days were already suffering enough on their own, so these "not killed" 6 million will put too much of a stress.

Will I be happy that 6 million people are NOT killed? Yes.
But am I worried that this will screw up the future in some inadvertent manner? Yes.

And of course, there is also the chance that Germany could have been taken over by USSR a little too quickly, who themselves have a motive of their own.

[Sefy the Great]

I honestly can't understand someone who has a loving family that they're willing to sacrifice along with a million other people in order to prevent the suffering of those who are already long dead.

Like, that decision is honestly unfathomable to me when you consider how much human suffering ( both emotional and physical ) goes on on a daily basis. You'd be preventing the tiniest fraction of human suffering ever to occur in exchange for destroying everybody that's meaningful in your life in the process. The ironic part is that the people who'd be willing to do that don't deserve those people in their lives in the first place.

This is 100 percent correct

“But remember what we’ve been taught in school. Holocaust is the ultimate evil. I must sacrifice all my family members and friends...”

in my school, history's worst moments didn't even earn an Honourable mention. barely talked about.
they didn't deny that it happened, but just never talked about it.

[Caracasus]

I honestly can't understand someone who has a loving family that they're willing to sacrifice along with a million other people in order to prevent the suffering of those who are already long dead.

Like, that decision is honestly unfathomable to me when you consider how much human suffering ( both emotional and physical ) goes on on a daily basis. You'd be preventing the tiniest fraction of human suffering ever to occur in exchange for destroying everybody that's meaningful in your life in the process. The ironic part is that the people who'd be willing to do that don't deserve those people in their lives in the first place.

This is 100 percent correct

“But remember what we’ve been taught in school. Holocaust is the ultimate evil. I must sacrifice all my family members and friends...”

I think we've been down the whole badly phrased argument/outright holocaust apologia route before you know.

[Parhe]

I like my life as it is, no thanks. Plus, without the Nazis and related chain of events, there is no telling how long Japan goes crazy in East Asia. On a more broad note, I'd rather guarantee one million people, my friends and family, remain alive by not pressing the button rather than push the button for the risk that five million more people, net increase, maybe survive.

[Quency]

Granted, 6 million lives will be saved. I am NOT, under any circumstances, justifying Holocaust, but I must also say that you now have 6 million and more people post-War, and more mouths to feed. Malnutrition and mass starvation, and looting and killing would probably take place.

Malthusianism was proven false over a century ago.

[The Free Joy State]

Probably not... either because of the Butterfly Effect, or because the universe will set things straight that there MUST be a Hitler.

- Butterfly Effect. What if you killed Hitler, and none of those atrocities happen? Granted, 6 million lives will be saved. I am NOT, under any circumstances, justifying Holocaust, but I must also say that you now have 6 million and more people post-War, and more mouths to feed. Malnutrition and mass starvation, and looting and killing would probably take place.

- For the latter option, I feel that even after you killed Hitler, it would become nothing short of a footnote in history, and will later be replaced by a nobody that will take the role of Hitler. Maybe this nobody was supposed to have no significant contributions to the society (e.g. no family, average Joe/factory worker, no one would miss him), but Fate would call him to become the next Hitler to make sure that the timeline is not disrupted. This is also on top of the fact that you can't just kill Hitler himself. Remember that many, many of the higher-ups and his right hand men were also anti-Semitic, so either the random Average Joe, or someone else will take the role of Hitler and continue the history, right until the end of WW2 with an eventual suicide.

Again, I am not justifying Holocaust in any way, shape, or form, and it is an extremely tragic event and a stain in our history. However, thinking about the possibilities of the post-War scarcity, coupled with the extra 6 million people (remember that it was already a bad-enough situation for the world)... I would say I can't kill him, lest the chance of the world being screwed even more is higher.

Of course, I am also aware that a fraction of the 6 million will probably die due to other acts of war (aerial bombardments, caught in the crossfire,...) but yeah, this is definitely something that doesn't have a clear question unless we know the future well enough.

Copied and pasted from the other thread. In other words, no. While I am mournful that the Holocaust happened, I can only imagine the strain it would have on practically the whole of Europe in terms of food demand. Remember that people in those days were already suffering enough on their own, so these "not killed" 6 million will put too much of a stress.

Will I be happy that 6 million people are NOT killed? Yes.
But am I worried that this will screw up the future in some inadvertent manner? Yes.

And of course, there is also the chance that Germany could have been taken over by USSR a little too quickly, who themselves have a motive of their own.

This thread has a different premise (i.e. no right-wingers waiting in the wings to commit atrocities anyway). From the OP:

If you press the button, you instantly change the past with the point of diversion being that the Nazis never take power. History changes accordingly, NOTHING is guaranteed except that 1. the Holocaust doesn't happen 2. the Nazis never take power in Germany 3. Your own present existence is not erased 4. Up to the present day NO OTHER VARIATION OF THE HOLOCAUST OCCURS, nothing on this scale

So, you will guarantee there will never be a Holocaust -- or any variation thereof. Absolutely nothing on that scale will ever happen. That is pretty tempting.

I mean, you have to consider your relatives and friends. Would they be happy to make the sacrifice? Quite a few people would, I think -- with that absolute certainty. They'd at least give it some serious thought.

This is 100 percent correct

“But remember what we’ve been taught in school. Holocaust is the ultimate evil. I must sacrifice all my family members and friends...”

I think we've been down the whole badly phrased argument/outright holocaust apologia route before you know.

I think we have. In light of that, I might even suggest it's arguably imprudent for IM to too-avidly agree with an individual who describes the Holocaust as "the tiniest fraction of human suffering ever to occur".

[Infected Mushroom]

Copied and pasted from the other thread. In other words, no. While I am mournful that the Holocaust happened, I can only imagine the strain it would have on practically the whole of Europe in terms of food demand. Remember that people in those days were already suffering enough on their own, so these "not killed" 6 million will put too much of a stress.

Will I be happy that 6 million people are NOT killed? Yes.
But am I worried that this will screw up the future in some inadvertent manner? Yes.

And of course, there is also the chance that Germany could have been taken over by USSR a little too quickly, who themselves have a motive of their own.

This thread has a different premise (i.e. no right-wingers waiting in the wings to commit atrocities anyway). From the OP:

If you press the button, you instantly change the past with the point of diversion being that the Nazis never take power. History changes accordingly, NOTHING is guaranteed except that 1. the Holocaust doesn't happen 2. the Nazis never take power in Germany 3. Your own present existence is not erased 4. Up to the present day NO OTHER VARIATION OF THE HOLOCAUST OCCURS, nothing on this scale

So, you will guarantee there will never be a Holocaust -- or any variation thereof. Absolutely nothing on that scale will ever happen. That is pretty tempting.

I mean, you have to consider your relatives and friends. Would they be happy to make the sacrifice? Quite a few people would, I think -- with that absolute certainty. They'd at least give it some serious thought.

I think we've been down the whole badly phrased argument/outright holocaust apologia route before you know.

I think we have. In light of that, I might even suggest it's arguably imprudent for IM to too-avidly agree with an individual who describes the Holocaust as "the tiniest fraction of human suffering ever to occur".

Compared to all of human suffering in history ever, the Holocaust is, objectively speaking (terrible as it is), a tiny fraction of total human suffering.

He's 100% correct.

When you take all of that into consideration, murdering 1 million people from the present to prevent a small percentage of total human suffering is absurd and unethical.

Or are you suggesting that the Holocaust could account for 20% of total human suffering (of all time)? Surely not. It wouldn't even make 1 percent when all of history is counted.

He's absolutely correct that all the time, every day, tons of people suffer. The total volume of that remains overall unchanged, whether or not the Holocaust happens or not. Most of it isn't "exceptional" and may seem like "mundane" suffering, but its suffering nevertheless and when it all adds up, the Holocaust is but a part of all of that.

[Infected Mushroom]

I like my life as it is, no thanks. Plus, without the Nazis and related chain of events, there is no telling how long Japan goes crazy in East Asia. On a more broad note, I'd rather guarantee one million people, my friends and family, remain alive by not pressing the button rather than push the button for the risk that five million more people, net increase, maybe survive.

You sir, have chosen wisely

[Caracasus]

This thread has a different premise (i.e. no right-wingers waiting in the wings to commit atrocities anyway). From the OP:


So, you will guarantee there will never be a Holocaust -- or any variation thereof. Absolutely nothing on that scale will ever happen. That is pretty tempting.

I mean, you have to consider your relatives and friends. Would they be happy to make the sacrifice? Quite a few people would, I think -- with that absolute certainty. They'd at least give it some serious thought.


I think we have. In light of that, I might even suggest it's arguably imprudent for IM to too-avidly agree with an individual who describes the Holocaust as "the tiniest fraction of human suffering ever to occur".

Compared to all of human suffering in history ever, the Holocaust is, objectively speaking (terrible as it is), a tiny fraction of total human suffering.

He's 100% correct.

When you take all of that into consideration, murdering 1 million people from the present to prevent a small percentage of total human suffering is absurd and unethical.

Or are you suggesting that the Holocaust could account for 20% of total human suffering (of all time)? Surely not. It wouldn't even make 1 percent when all of history is counted.

He's absolutely correct that all the time, every day, tons of people suffer. The total volume of that remains overall unchanged, whether or not the Holocaust happens or not. Most of it isn't "exceptional" and may seem like "mundane" suffering, but its suffering nevertheless and when it all adds up, the Holocaust is but a part of all of that.

That fails even by your logic IM. If the holocaust is a tiny fraction, then the sudden death (note not tortured, raped to death or shot and buried while still alive or left to choke to death with paralyzed lungs next to their own children suffering the same fate) is even less significant.

There's no reason not to press that button. Fuck it, a million is by your accounting an insignificant speck on the balls of a gnat.

[Infected Mushroom]

Compared to all of human suffering in history ever, the Holocaust is, objectively speaking (terrible as it is), a tiny fraction of total human suffering.

He's 100% correct.

When you take all of that into consideration, murdering 1 million people from the present to prevent a small percentage of total human suffering is absurd and unethical.

Or are you suggesting that the Holocaust could account for 20% of total human suffering (of all time)? Surely not. It wouldn't even make 1 percent when all of history is counted.

He's absolutely correct that all the time, every day, tons of people suffer. The total volume of that remains overall unchanged, whether or not the Holocaust happens or not. Most of it isn't "exceptional" and may seem like "mundane" suffering, but its suffering nevertheless and when it all adds up, the Holocaust is but a part of all of that.

That fails even by your logic IM. If the holocaust is a tiny fraction, then the sudden death (note not tortured, raped to death or shot and buried while still alive or left to choke to death with paralyzed lungs next to their own children suffering the same fate) is even less significant.

There's no reason not to press that button. Fuck it, a million is by your accounting an insignificant speck on the balls of a gnat.

There is a reason not to press the button.

Loyalty to your friends and family and a desire not to be a murderer of 1 million.

If you press the button, you objectively murdered 1 million people (and as others pointed out, a world war could still occur in altered timeline though no alternate Holocaust).

If you don't press the button, then you're not a murderer. The people who have died stay dead, that is all.

There is a world of difference.

[The Free Joy State]

This thread has a different premise (i.e. no right-wingers waiting in the wings to commit atrocities anyway). From the OP:


So, you will guarantee there will never be a Holocaust -- or any variation thereof. Absolutely nothing on that scale will ever happen. That is pretty tempting.

I mean, you have to consider your relatives and friends. Would they be happy to make the sacrifice? Quite a few people would, I think -- with that absolute certainty. They'd at least give it some serious thought.


I think we have. In light of that, I might even suggest it's arguably imprudent for IM to too-avidly agree with an individual who describes the Holocaust as "the tiniest fraction of human suffering ever to occur".

Compared to all of human suffering in history ever, the Holocaust is, objectively speaking (terrible as it is), a tiny fraction of total human suffering.

He's 100% correct.

When you take all of that into consideration, murdering 1 million people from the present to prevent a small percentage of total human suffering is absurd and unethical.

Or are you suggesting that the Holocaust could account for 20% of total human suffering (of all time)? Surely not. It wouldn't even make 1 percent.

He's absolutely correct that all the time, every day, tons of people suffer. The total volume of that remains overall unchanged, whether or not the Holocaust happens or not. Most of it isn't "exceptional" and may seem like "mundane" suffering, but its suffering nevertheless and when it all adds up, the Holocaust is but a part of all of that.

Yes, while there has been cruelty throughout history, genocide stands out. The Holocaust stands out as man's inhumanity to man. Why? Because it was systematic, mechanised and against civilians. It was perpetrated on individuals (from infants in arms to elderly people) because of religion, sexuality, political affiliation or nationality. It stands out because it was perpetrated without consideration of age, gender, mental illness of physical disability (frequently because of, in the latter two cases -- even the harsh middle ages wouldn't let someone "of unsound mind" -- as they'd say -- be executed). It was perpetrated with the sole aim of destroying human beings (not to convert, not with any misguided idea of "righteousness" -- as so many atrocities have been committed -- but solely to murder and destroy).

While cruelty has existed throughout history, the Holocaust stands out. And to say otherwise looks like a deliberate or misguided attempt to minimise.

And, as you're back:

My point is that -- while the wishes of my family, friends and close acquaintances matter -- the rest of that random million don't. I owe one million random strangers I don't know, have never met and may not care for no more loyalty than any other member of the human race (which is basic courtesy). If my family and friends would be okay with me pushing the button, I can push it (and won't stop because some random guy 999,999 doesn't like the idea).

But, you never answered how far you'd go for random strangers. Are you loyal to random strangers (which means protecting them over others): would you take a bullet for one, protect one in a bar brawl; comfort a random stranger who vomited on your shoe (a thing most would do for someone they cared about, but not a random drunk at the bus-stop)?

If not, why would those million random strangers impact your decision now. Why should their fate matter more than the 17 million lives (the countless other million more in the war) and all their descendants who could have been alive today?

[Caracasus]

That fails even by your logic IM. If the holocaust is a tiny fraction, then the sudden death (note not tortured, raped to death or shot and buried while still alive or left to choke to death with paralyzed lungs next to their own children suffering the same fate) is even less significant.

There's no reason not to press that button. Fuck it, a million is by your accounting an insignificant speck on the balls of a gnat.

There is a reason not to press the button.

Loyalty to your friends and family and a desire not to be a murderer of 1 million.

If you press the button, you objectively murdered 1 million people (and as others pointed out, a world war could still occur in altered timeline though no alternate Holocaust).

If you don't press the button, then you're not a murderer. The people who have died stay dead, that is all.

There is a world of difference.

So? In the grand sceme of things that's broadly equivilent to a parking ticket apparently.

[Infected Mushroom]

There is a reason not to press the button.

Loyalty to your friends and family and a desire not to be a murderer of 1 million.

If you press the button, you objectively murdered 1 million people (and as others pointed out, a world war could still occur in altered timeline though no alternate Holocaust).

If you don't press the button, then you're not a murderer. The people who have died stay dead, that is all.

There is a world of difference.

So? In the grand sceme of things that's broadly equivilent to a parking ticket apparently.

One word: Loyalty

[Infected Mushroom]

Compared to all of human suffering in history ever, the Holocaust is, objectively speaking (terrible as it is), a tiny fraction of total human suffering.

He's 100% correct.

When you take all of that into consideration, murdering 1 million people from the present to prevent a small percentage of total human suffering is absurd and unethical.

Or are you suggesting that the Holocaust could account for 20% of total human suffering (of all time)? Surely not. It wouldn't even make 1 percent.

He's absolutely correct that all the time, every day, tons of people suffer. The total volume of that remains overall unchanged, whether or not the Holocaust happens or not. Most of it isn't "exceptional" and may seem like "mundane" suffering, but its suffering nevertheless and when it all adds up, the Holocaust is but a part of all of that.

Yes, while there has been cruelty throughout history, genocide stands out. The Holocaust stands out as man's inhumanity to man. Why? Because it was systematic, mechanised and against civilians. It was perpetrated on individuals (from infants in arms to elderly people) because of religion, sexuality, political affiliation or nationality. It stands out because it was perpetrated without consideration of age, gender, mental illness of physical disability (frequently because of, in the latter two cases -- even the harsh middle ages wouldn't let someone "of unsound mind" -- as they'd say -- be executed). It was perpetrated with the sole aim of destroying human beings (not to convert, not with any misguided idea of "righteousness" -- as so many atrocities have been committed -- but solely to murder and destroy).

While cruelty has existed throughout history, the Holocaust stands out. And to say otherwise looks like a deliberate or misguided attempt to minimise.

And, as you're back:

My point is that -- while the wishes of my family, friends and close acquaintances matter -- the rest of that random million don't. I owe one million random strangers I don't know, have never met and may not care for no more loyalty than any other member of the human race (which is basic courtesy). If my family and friends would be okay with me pushing the button, I can push it (and won't stop because some random guy 999,999 doesn't like the idea).

But, you never answered how far you'd go for random strangers. Are you loyal to random strangers (which means protecting them over others): would you take a bullet for one, protect one in a bar brawl; comfort a random stranger who vomited on your shoe (a thing most would do for someone they cared about, but not a random drunk at the bus-stop)?

If not, why would those million random strangers impact your decision now. Why should their fate matter more than the 17 million lives (the countless other million more in the war) and all their descendants who could have been alive today?

I would not take a bullet for a total random stranger. But I would for family and friends. But that is not really the point...

Because they are people in the present and I'm deciding whether or not they will live in the future (hence its murder if I proceed with their elimination)

There's a difference between not doing anything to bring back the dead (it it means you have to murder people in the present)... and actually killing/murdering people.

[Caracasus]

So? In the grand sceme of things that's broadly equivilent to a parking ticket apparently.

One word: Loyalty

Yep. But when the whole holocaust is a tiny weeny deal, then why should anyone care about loyalty? I mean, we're putting things into perspective here right?

If the extermination of millions is pretty insignificant, then an arbitary concept holding you to approximately what, a couple hundred people maximum, counts for absolutely nothing at all.

All I ask is some consistency here.

[Infected Mushroom]

One word: Loyalty

Yep. But when the whole holocaust is a tiny weeny deal, then why should anyone care about loyalty? I mean, we're putting things into perspective here right?

If the extermination of millions is pretty insignificant, then an arbitary concept holding you to approximately what, a couple hundred people maximum, counts for absolutely nothing at all.

All I ask is some consistency here.

Again, it depends on how much you value loyalty. For me its a line I'm not going to cross. I'm also not going to become a murderer for the sake of people who are already dead.

I consider it murder if you cause the death of 1 million people in the present timeline.

I don't consider it murder if you choose not to eliminate 1 million people from the present timeline (and people who are already dead stay dead).

I also feel, on a fundamental level, that betraying friends and family is a No Go.

That's as succinctly as I can put it.

[Caracasus]

Yep. But when the whole holocaust is a tiny weeny deal, then why should anyone care about loyalty? I mean, we're putting things into perspective here right?

If the extermination of millions is pretty insignificant, then an arbitary concept holding you to approximately what, a couple hundred people maximum, counts for absolutely nothing at all.

All I ask is some consistency here.

Again, it depends on how much you value loyalty. For me its a line I'm not going to cross. I'm also not going to become a murderer for the sake of people who are already dead.

I consider it murder if you cause the death of 1 million people in the present timeline.

I don't consider it murder if you choose not to eliminate 1 million people from the present timeline (and people who are already dead stay dead).

I also feel, on a fundamental level, that betraying friends and family is a No Go.

That's as succinctly as I can put it.

Fair enough. So if you're asking me to extend to you respect and understanding for your emotionally led decision, why the constant attempts to downplay the hollocaust and constant attempts to frame people's disgust at it as overly emotional SJW'ism?

This is why people think you're starting to sound like a hollocaust apologist IM

[The Free Joy State]

Yes, while there has been cruelty throughout history, genocide stands out. The Holocaust stands out as man's inhumanity to man. Why? Because it was systematic, mechanised and against civilians. It was perpetrated on individuals (from infants in arms to elderly people) because of religion, sexuality, political affiliation or nationality. It stands out because it was perpetrated without consideration of age, gender, mental illness of physical disability (frequently because of, in the latter two cases -- even the harsh middle ages wouldn't let someone "of unsound mind" -- as they'd say -- be executed). It was perpetrated with the sole aim of destroying human beings (not to convert, not with any misguided idea of "righteousness" -- as so many atrocities have been committed -- but solely to murder and destroy).

While cruelty has existed throughout history, the Holocaust stands out. And to say otherwise looks like a deliberate or misguided attempt to minimise.

And, as you're back:

My point is that -- while the wishes of my family, friends and close acquaintances matter -- the rest of that random million don't. I owe one million random strangers I don't know, have never met and may not care for no more loyalty than any other member of the human race (which is basic courtesy). If my family and friends would be okay with me pushing the button, I can push it (and won't stop because some random guy 999,999 doesn't like the idea).

But, you never answered how far you'd go for random strangers. Are you loyal to random strangers (which means protecting them over others): would you take a bullet for one, protect one in a bar brawl; comfort a random stranger who vomited on your shoe (a thing most would do for someone they cared about, but not a random drunk at the bus-stop)?

If not, why would those million random strangers impact your decision now. Why should their fate matter more than the 17 million lives (the countless other million more in the war) and all their descendants who could have been alive today?

I would not take a bullet for a total random stranger. But I would for family and friends. But that is not really the point...

Because they are people in the present and I'm deciding whether or not they will live in the future (hence its murder if I proceed with their elimination)

There's a difference between not doing anything to bring back the dead (it it means you have to murder people in the present)... and actually killing/murdering people.

It wouldn't actually be murder. There would be no malice aforethought; no ill-will towards the strangers. I would be saving lives (far more lives, proportionally -- including their descendants) at the cost of others. And I would be preventing suffering (a lot of pain and suffering: the stripping of human rights, the people who were put into ghettoes and starved, the human experimentation, those who were shot or gassed) for instantaneous death in the present.

It's a hard decision, but basically the trolley problem: is it better that one person dies (immediately and with no stated pain) than six people die -- or more accurately, 17 people die plus all their descendants (with agonising slowness and a lot of suffering)?

I'm not sure what decision I'd take. I'd have to run it by all the people I care about who would be likely to be impacted.

And my question of the strangers is kind of is the point, by the way. You ask us to consider the lives of random present-day strangers above and beyond that which all people (including you yourself) would do.

You may as well have omitted the strangers. They are an irrelevance to the core dilemma.

[Berhakonia]

It shouldn't be up to me to decide life and death. Any sane human would agree

[The Huskar Social Union]

I thought you were done with this IM because it was the most unpleasant experience you've had.

[Caracasus]

I thought you were done with this IM because it was the most unpleasant experience you've had.

The additional hidden upside to removing the holocaust is that there'd also be no holocaust apologist/deniers putting forward their 'rational, well reasoned arguments' all over the place.

[Ifreann]

Not really. You can only betray those who trust you, and no one I know has any reason to believe that there exists a trust between us such that we would each value the other's life over an arbitrarily large number of innocent lives. There doesn't need to be any writing.

then its clear to me that the duty of loyalty means nothing to you

Loyalty doesn't mean that I'll favour my family and friends over an arbitrarily large number of innocent lives.