Is it better to give x people a cookie or give y starving children a meal, all else equal?

[Sicnoo0]

One reason I've found negative utilitarianism appealing is that it seems to avoid what I believe is an issue with most forms of consequentialism.

If you ask me:
Is it better to give 1 person a cookie or give 100 starving children a meal, all else equal?

Then I'd say that the amount of wellbeing added to the person by the cookie does not exceed the amount of suffering prevented by giving each of the starving children a meal.


If you ask me:
Is it better to give 1 person a ticket to Disneyland or give 1 starving child a meal, all else equal?

Then I'd say that the amount of wellbeing added to the person by spending the day riding roller coasters does perhaps exceed the amount of suffering prevented by giving the starving child a meal.

However, I'm not sure that means it is better to give 1 person a ticket to Disneyland than it is to give 1 starving child a meal, all else equal.


If you ask me:
Is it better to give 7 billion people a cookie or give 1 starving child a meal, all else equal?

Then I'd say that the amount of wellbeing added to the people by the cookies probably does exceed the amount of suffering prevented by giving the starving child a meal.

However, I'm not sure that means it is better to give 7 billion people a cookie than it is to give 1 starving child a meal, all else equal.

According to a negative utilitarian, it is better to prevent suffering rather than add wellbeing in all scenarios.