Well, in that case, you're specifying that the additional stress is being applied to people who can take it.
Let's turn the whole danged thing around: Would you rather that 3^^^^3 people got one less dust speck in their eyes (in times when dust specks were not the limiting factor on much more important activities), or prevent one person from being horribly tortured for 50 years?
A related question would go: Would you volunteer not to have your dust speck count reduced, with it understood that A) if 3^^^3 people volunteer for this, someone will not be tortured, and B) there are well over 3^^^3 people being asked this, so it's not well beyond futile.
If you can find 3^^^3 volunteers, must they be irrational, or are they just willing to take that tiny hit?
Question about your hypothetical: What happens if less than the necessary number of people volunteer for the dust speck? Do they A) get the dust speck to no purpose, or B) is their speck count reduced as though they hadn't volunteered?
I wouldn't volunteer either way, if you ignore irrational guilt trips like ArisKatsaris said. If there are 3^^^3 volunteers, they are irrational in situation B, and probably in situation A as well.
Today's post, Torture vs. Dust Specks was originally published on 30 October 2007. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Motivated Stopping and Motivated Continuation, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.