I believe choosing 5 people to save/kill would be the better choice, but I really don't know if it's a choice I'd be able to make. About these "kill innocent people to save more innocent people" choices, some may argue against it, but in the end, you choose between innocent people dying and more innocent people dying. I think choices should be considered right or wrong depending on the effect they have on others, and to some extent, the intentions behind the choice.
For example, I don't believe that lying itself is bad in any circumstance. Say an annoying telemarketer calls, asking for "Mr. or Mrs. Insert Name here." Can anyone really blame you if you say "No, they're not here right now"? In the end, you spared yourself/your parents the hassle of having to hang up at the first mention of "insert useless crap that telemarketers sell here."
In the aforementioned moral dilemma (kill/save people), some may see it better to do nothing, easing their conscience. But sometimes it can be selfish if you're always thinking about YOUR conscience. Ironic, isn't it? In said situations you may have the power to act, and with great power comes great (*gets shot*).
The Golden Rule ("do unto others blah blah blah") can be considered a reason why people do good (they'd want the same thing done for them if they were in need of displays of kindness for others). It seems like a solid moral code to live by. If you do, you ensure that you don't become a hypocrite. The greatest crime one can commit against oneself is to (I'm going to have to disagree with John Galt here) betray one's own principles.
The Golden Rule is all well and good, except when you throw sadomasochists into the mix. They like causing pain and they like receiving pain. Lose/lose situation.
However, in the end, does our supposed choices in said situations really mean much? We've gone far past the days of Hitler's rule, and it's really hard to kick a guy who's fat enough to stop a train off a cliff, let alone said fat guy actually existing, so I don't think we're going to be thrown into such horrible extreme dillemas (dillemae?) like that. Nevertheless, it is an interesting topic to delve into.
Also, hooray for agnosticism.
For example, I don't believe that lying itself is bad in any circumstance. Say an annoying telemarketer calls, asking for "Mr. or Mrs. Insert Name here." Can anyone really blame you if you say "No, they're not here right now"? In the end, you spared yourself/your parents the hassle of having to hang up at the first mention of "insert useless crap that telemarketers sell here."
In the aforementioned moral dilemma (kill/save people), some may see it better to do nothing, easing their conscience. But sometimes it can be selfish if you're always thinking about YOUR conscience. Ironic, isn't it? In said situations you may have the power to act, and with great power comes great (*gets shot*).
The Golden Rule ("do unto others blah blah blah") can be considered a reason why people do good (they'd want the same thing done for them if they were in need of displays of kindness for others). It seems like a solid moral code to live by. If you do, you ensure that you don't become a hypocrite. The greatest crime one can commit against oneself is to (I'm going to have to disagree with John Galt here) betray one's own principles.
The Golden Rule is all well and good, except when you throw sadomasochists into the mix. They like causing pain and they like receiving pain. Lose/lose situation.
However, in the end, does our supposed choices in said situations really mean much? We've gone far past the days of Hitler's rule, and it's really hard to kick a guy who's fat enough to stop a train off a cliff, let alone said fat guy actually existing, so I don't think we're going to be thrown into such horrible extreme dillemas (dillemae?) like that. Nevertheless, it is an interesting topic to delve into.
Also, hooray for agnosticism.
