None, one or many?

UNM

Background:

You don't know the people concerned, they don't know you. If you do nothing, nobody will know. Equally important, if you do something, it will probably not be recognised.

The question is not what SHOULD you do, but what WOULD you do.

For this example, the 'one person' cannot easily have their sight restored, so there is no overlap.

Janlab

If its close to you, the answer is easy! J

Brett H

JanLab: "like" It depends on your definition of the common good.

UNM

Bear in mind, none of these people are known to you, as most of us have a tendency to put those we care about ahead of others. The one may be a kiddie botherer for all we know (but probably not). Oh and to simplify things, lets say there is some small cost involved in helping, but not enough to actually cause any hardship.

Janlab

"Small cost" doesn't change the right answer. And of course you are correct, if the person is known to you, it's a no brainer. Helping improve sight may be trivial, for example mine from -3 to -2 means nothing, but make someone actually see! Huge. Now, lets say a lot of people get the chance to do the exercise.. That would make the odds for a single person quite good,  a lot better than the lotto! Finally, getting no recognition is ok, that is not why one does something good.

UNM

clearly there is no 'right' answer' though as responses vary. Always interesting to see the different  responses to what each of us think is an obvious question/answer.