If one innocent person is tortured so that everyone else can live and the world doesn't end, is that simultaneously unfair but also morally preferable over complete destruction of everything?

Welcome to the trolley problem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I mean, most Christians would say yes because that's the entire premise of the crucifixion.

This interpretation leaves out the most important part of the crucifixion story: Jesus willingly took on the world's sins out of love. So whether or not most Christians would say yes depends on if the one person being tortured has a choice in the matter, which is unspecified in the question.
I came to say the same thing. This is exactly what Christianity believes.

But of course, it was Jesus who gave himself willingly.

If he was forced to do that, it would've been reprehensible because he was the only truly innocent person who ever lived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas

Basically the plot of this story. It poses the issue of how much we value society over the individual, and if that is good or not. Would you want to live in a world that depended on the the torture of a single person. You then could extrapolate that out to societies in the real world, US and chattel slavery. the west and the use of sweat shop labor for cheap products, the Emirates and their use of migrants as indentured servants. Even tipped wages for servers in the USA, the gig economy, and things like medical residencies could be considered a minor version of Omelas. As humans, we often tolerate the abuse or exploitation of others for our own benefit, or even just out of ignorance and inaction.

A great story that illustrates this question really well. It is by Ursula K. Le Guin, written in 1973, if anyone is wondering.
- Ursula K. Le Guin
  
  So pissed that she is not much more famous. Earthsea is one of the great fantasy stories that people tend to forget.
It is a quick read. One of a handful of stories that I have gone back to over the decades.
Star Trek Strange New Worlds recently did an interpretation of this story
Like what happens in the anthropocene to pretty much all animals except dogs & cats lol
That short story had long lasting effects on my worldview. But my interpretation was a bit different. I saw the girl as a representation of ALL the people who have to suffer due to choices we make that benefit ourselves. e.g. I live in America and enjoy its benefits, but I have to be ok with the idea that I only live here due to the genocide of American Indians. Deep down I know it, but I just ignore it so I can enjoy my life just like the townspeople in the story must ignore the girl they know suffers
https://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/the-ones-who-stay-and-fight/

Someone made a response story of sorts, figure I might as well share it here

If that one innocent person agrees to it, I say yes. Otherwise, no.

If nobody volunteers, we all go down.

Do you mean ultimate badass Talenel’Elin , Herald of War?

No it’s not morally preferable. Fuck that world that requires human sacrifice.

Just out of interest, what if we make it a (not-human) animal instead of a human? Or, what if we make it trillions of animals every year. What about a world that doesn't require it but still includes mass amounts of animal sacrifice unnecessarily? That's the world we're in right now 😂
- Most peoples empathy differs from human to animal.
I agree. It would be practical and coldhearted, not moral.

It's also a fake question because there is no situation where torturing someone makes the world a better place.
I mean the "first world" is built entirely on the sacrifices of the rest of the world. People live in unimaginably horrible conditions so that we can consume and be free.

I'll take a different approach here. Evolution does not care about your feelings.

If a species is unwilling to self-sacrifice for the greater good, and it comes up against an event that cannot be solved with selfishness, it goes extinct. Like in this scenario.

But evolution is a motherfucker, and evolution does not care about your feelings, the only thing that matters to evolution is reproductive success. So some people are going to be altruistic because that's better for the species because it makes it more survivable.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's wrong, but the species that's going to survive is the one that's willing to self sacrifice for the greater good of the species. To increase reproductive success. And that's what's going to be left in the universe. Because evolution does not care. You either get with the program or you get out of the gene pool no other option

Evolution is not a good base for morals. We tried it out - was really bad.
- Now hold on. How can we be certain? Maybe holocaust 2: electric boogaloo will be better
- Evolution works, we exist.

An inherently flawed world maintaining its function through cannibalism will inevitably devour itself into nonexistence. Why prolong its suffering?

Has that happened? No really I am asking for evidence. We have had forms of slavery since our species began. It wasn't like one time we had a slave 20,000 years ago. The world still basically works with humans using humans. We don't have to like it, we should fight it, but the idea that you are stating that if we are bad once we lose everything doesn't match with the facts that we have.

I am typing this while wearing clothing made by children on a phone made by slaves in China.

Is that person Rupert Murdoch? Then yes

Haha, innocent. He doesn't really fit the description.
- Shit you're right
- He's technically "innocent" of millions of deaths caused by his decades of misinformation.
Can we torture 10 deserving people instead of 1 innocent?

I'd just walk away from Omelas.

A great story that illustrates this question really well. It is by Ursula K. Le Guin, written in 1973, if anyone is wondering.

I think it has happened numerous times already under the same pretense.

I am not sure if we are saved or not.

Are you trying to make an arguement for Christianity?

Unfair to ask the question in the incomplete form.. The tortured person is you. Now answer

Nope. That's a world that's not worth saving.

Is it really though? Injustices happen all the time here. I want to agree with you but I'm struggling to come up with good justifications for it. Can you explain your thinking a little bit?
So everyone including the innocent just ends?

Because regardless of the choice. Innocent people will die.

It's how quickly you want that to happen I think is what we're going after.

Is this voluntary? Is it random? Is the person truly innocent? Is this person known or will be remembered? Is it a child? Is the world aware?

I have a ton of questions that lean onto the "slow" side of things.

But I think it's too easy to say "nope, just end it".
- It's a fumbly one, eh?
  
  I agree that in an existence with that decision on the line, we would have to question many things.
  
  Does someone innocent have to die, or is someone lying about the rules of the decision to save themselves? Would people who expect to kill this person be willing to offer same thing themselves? If not, why can they really decide for someone else? Is the death actually necessary, and how? Will new religions form from this?
  
  What happens if it fails? Will that person just be dead for no reason? Will their loved ones be cared for? Who would even qualify?
- Is this voluntary? Is it random? Is the person truly innocent? Is this person known or will be remembered? Is it a child? Is the world aware?
  
  I just picture Cabin in the Woods.

So my options are:

Lots of people suffering

No people suffering

How is it even a question?

Not really. It's more like:

Everyone ending

One innocent ending to keep everyone else alive

That's more challenging.
- More challenging is to remove the benefit of answering as a bystander and hand over an active role, so now the question is would you torture an innocent to keep the world alive. Then question progresses to what if that innocent is someone you care most about to see the extent of their resolve
- But living is suffering.
Let's put more of the responsibility in the individuals hands. Would you be willing to carry out the torture of innocents under the belief that your actions guarantee peace?
- Yes

I would not do it, if somebody else does it - so be it.

Come torture me

"healthy unemployment rate"

Someone needs to watch "Knock at the Cabin" by Shyamalan.

Or Cabin in the Woods.
- Absolutely!

Random people we've never heard of get tortured every day for less. What's one more? Jack Bauer will do whatever he needs to do so everyone else can live and the world doesn't end.

That is many people's mentality, yes. It probably depends if you were the one being tortured or were close. Pain can be ignored if not directly felt, especially if it means whatever you think your survival entails.

I'm not comfortable with it, but I'm not comfortable with life either.

I think it's a harder problem when you're the one that has to do the torturing. It's easier to say "yeah that dude should get tortured" than to do the waterboarding yourself. Unless you're fucked in the head of course.

I mean, easier? Sure. But I don't think most people would find it easy to just say go torture a guy. At least I hope so.

So, who do we torture?

shotgun