You mention s lot of hypotheticals, such as “being able to stop wars” and “moving entire peoples”. You also mention the trolley problem: a problem really only about the morality of choosing and whether you can distance yourself from a choice if it were presented to you.
In truth we can only ever be responsible for the choices that are actually presented to us, which are usually much more small scale. (Most people aren’t invited to any UN meeting for example)
You can try to become more powerful - become such a “leader” - and so try to have to make more impacting choices, but: (1) this involves a lot of hard work and a great deal of luck; and (2) this may come at the cost of others - for example by moving power from a group to an individual.
Of course there is nuance there: it is possible to gain or create power, lead a group in a positive way, and so have a stronger more impacting choices to make and help a group of people, animals, plants, etc; but that is no easy thing to achieve.
If the goal is only to gain more power - even if you would need to remove from others - would that really still help improve society? Would society not be more fair if every person only makes choices regarding their life, instead of dictating the lives of others or have others dictating them?
Really I would focus first on the small sort of choices you are faced with every day. I would also not focus on the scale of the impact, but only on whether or not it is positive: whether or not you are helping you and your surroundings. No matter if that’s by helping with some gardening, doing some light volunteering,… or by visiting loved ones or making art.
By choosing to make the small sort of positive choices we can all collectively make huge positive impacts without ever needing someone to choose for us.
And who knows - relying on the butterfly effect - … maybe those small sort of positive choices can start that positive collective wave and so truely have had a big impact after all.
You mention s lot of hypotheticals, such as “being able to stop wars” and “moving entire peoples”. You also mention the trolley problem: a problem really only about the morality of choosing and whether you can distance yourself from a choice if it were presented to you.
In truth we can only ever be responsible for the choices that are actually presented to us, which are usually much more small scale. (Most people aren’t invited to any UN meeting for example)
You can try to become more powerful - become such a “leader” - and so try to have to make more impacting choices, but: (1) this involves a lot of hard work and a great deal of luck; and (2) this may come at the cost of others - for example by moving power from a group to an individual.
Of course there is nuance there: it is possible to gain or create power, lead a group in a positive way, and so have a stronger more impacting choices to make and help a group of people, animals, plants, etc; but that is no easy thing to achieve.
If the goal is only to gain more power - even if you would need to remove from others - would that really still help improve society? Would society not be more fair if every person only makes choices regarding their life, instead of dictating the lives of others or have others dictating them?
Really I would focus first on the small sort of choices you are faced with every day. I would also not focus on the scale of the impact, but only on whether or not it is positive: whether or not you are helping you and your surroundings. No matter if that’s by helping with some gardening, doing some light volunteering,… or by visiting loved ones or making art.
By choosing to make the small sort of positive choices we can all collectively make huge positive impacts without ever needing someone to choose for us.
And who knows - relying on the butterfly effect - … maybe those small sort of positive choices can start that positive collective wave and so truely have had a big impact after all.