100 people hands down. Infinite people means infinite lives removed, infinite experiences etc. The 100 people will never truly die either, so if minimizing death is the goal, that’s best. It also is the choice that will happen without your input and those are usually better morally than actively changing and sentencing other people to death by yourself.
Why tho? Your choice is to condemn a few, versus kill more people than have died throughout all of history of humankind. 100 is a drop in a bucket compared to eternal genocide.
100 people hands down. Infinite people means infinite lives removed, infinite experiences etc. The 100 people will never truly die either, so if minimizing death is the goal, that’s best. It also is the choice that will happen without your input and those are usually better morally than actively changing and sentencing other people to death by yourself.
Minimizing death by replacing it with eternal torment is some evil genie shit.
I vote for fair distribution of suffering, instead of to just 100 people.
Why tho? Your choice is to condemn a few, versus kill more people than have died throughout all of history of humankind. 100 is a drop in a bucket compared to eternal genocide.
deleted by creator
It’s a communist thing. Fair distribution of wealth and suffering.
It’s a capitalist assumption to think people with less karma goes first.
Would you change your answer based on where you are on the tracks?