Poll: Kill one, save millions: A Question of Morals.

[Instant K4rma]

I'm sorry, but how do we know that killing him will save millions? We have simply had someone tell us that killing him will save millions, which is an unsupported prediction by someone who may not even be an expert in this field; why should we trust him if it means killing a complete stranger? Why don't we know anything about him; why can't we do some research and find out exactly what evidence there is to show that millions will die? How exactly will not killing him result in the deaths of millions, and how relevant would the actual deaths be to me choosing not to kill him? What are the chances that the millions will die anyway of irrelevent causes? Is it a scenario like Watchmen, where this man killing millions would in turn save billions?

There are too many unanswered questions to make an instinctive descision as controversial as this one.

Well, I was intending this to be more of a question of morals then that of data and hard facts. I guess my scenario offset a few people due to lacking information. What I'm asking really boils down to a basic question: "Would you kill someone if it meant saving millions?" And this question implies that you know for a fact that his death would save millions.

I tried setting up a scenario just to give the question a perspective, but I guess it really just blurred the intention of my question in the first place. Sorry about that.

 

[Verbal Samurai]

This is odd because I seem to remember a poll a while back which was almost identical to this one, except the issue was torturing the man rather than killing him...and the results were the opposite of these.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Here is the scenario: There is a man in front of you. You do not know him at all. You are given a gun and told that if you kill him, millions of lives will be saved.

Considering the fact that its more likely that the people telling me these things are lying, no.

 

[Marter]

If the person was a stranger, I'd probably do it. Saving millions would be worth the cost of a life I don't know.

If they are a close friend, I'd probably just think they are joking.

If they were family, I'd probably do it. My family would be serious, and I would be saving a lot of lives.

 

[Urgh76]

hard to say, but wouldn't you kill millions just to save one that was extremely close?

 

[LokiSuaveHP]

He could kill millions.

Millions of religious fanatics that were trying to cause a widespread outbreak of a massive virus that would annihilate the population of the world.

Millions of people by leaving them behind when a natural disaster is occurring because he only had so much space to leave.

Millions of people when China invaded India, India invaded Pakistan, The Arab States tried to annihilate what remained of Judaism by massacring all the Jews in Israel. He chooses the side of the oppressed and kills a million of the oppressors.

I cannot kill a man for sins he has not yet committed.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Why do I have to kill him? Why can't he do it? I don't know, its gonna be hard to take in that you killed a human being. Most of you would shoot without a second thought, but really, would you?

 

[AkJay]

If anything, it's easier to kill someone who is anonymous. My only thought is if the Big Brother telling me to kill him is lying about it saving lives or not.

 

[silasbufu]

Depends on what "millions" means. About 250000-300000 people die everyday.

 

[John Smyth]

No, Never Compromise, Not Even In The Face of Armageddon. Murder is unjustifiable regardless of the reason or consequences.

 

[Dyp100]

Yep, but as long as it wasn't someone close to me.

Why would it save millions? Is the guy some kinda terrorist, and the future-police have come to save us, but THEY can't do it or it'll break time?

 

[Kimarous]

This doesn't seem like that hard of a question to answer. You should make the scenario more difficult, like if you were in an F-16 watching a plane head straight for the World Trade Center - do you shoot it down, killing 250 innocent people in addition to the terrorists (who, by the way, did nothing to offend you personally), or let them kill 3,000+?

I'd shoot it down any day of the week, so I guess the answer to your poll question is an easy "yes."

The bump with that particular scenario is that the 250 innocents on the plane are doomed anyway. If one didn't shoot the plane down, they would still die in the crash into the tower. To do nothing wouldn't be saving their lives, but dooming thousands more.

True, one might have reservations of personally bringing down the plane, but it would be far worse to have 12-odd times that number of people die from one's inaction.

 

[Velvo]

See the problem with this is that it's a false scenario. Things are always more complicated and there are always alternatives. Not only that, but you could never KNOW that killing this man would save anyone at all.

Besides that, sacrificing the basic human rights of an altogether good person for any goal is wrong. Is it more wrong than letting millions die, knowing that you could have saved them? Harder question. I'd say it depends entirely on the particular situation.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

Well, I was intending this to be more of a question of morals then that of data and hard facts. I guess my scenario offset a few people due to lacking information. What I'm asking really boils down to a basic question: "Would you kill someone if it meant saving millions?" And this question implies that you know for a fact that his death would save millions.

I tried setting up a scenario just to give the question a perspective, but I guess it really just blurred the intention of my question in the first place. Sorry about that.

That's okay, thanks for explaining what this question is more about but I'll stick with my previous comment.

If it's absolutely certain fact that killing this stranger would save millions and that not killing him (aka anything which would result in him not dieing) would result in the deaths of millions (and that killing these millions wouldn't be for any greater good either), regardless of anything that happens after choosing not to kill him (this is the closest this question will probably ever get to the answer being completely based off of morals) then of course I would kill the stranger. I'm a pacifist and I stick to peaceful options whenever possible, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, as [user]Maddawg IAJI[/user] said up above [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.193706-Poll-Kill-one-save-millions-A-Question-of-Morals#6148776].

However, in reality such a hypothetical scenario is almost never going to happen, so if someone gives me a gun and asks me to kill a stranger so that it saves the lives of millions in real life, I'd simply walk away. There are too many assumptions to simply kill someone on the spot based off of moral decisions and because someone said that they would kill millions otherwise (it's the case of Occam's razor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor]; it's easier to conclude that this man is lying than it is to conclude that the stranger would kill millions, as it requires less assumptions to believe that the man is lying).

 

[Simski]

I votes yes, then I read the post :3

I would only not do it if it was a person I liked, or if it would get me in more trouble than not killing him.

 

[Stone Wera]

Well to me it depends what he looks like. In this situation, first impressions are all important. I mean sure, if he LOOKS shifty, i'll kill him.

And if he's in some sort of uniform. Uniforms signify that he has some sort of power. Perhaps the power of nuclear warfare.

If he's a tramp, then I'd have trouble believing him to be of much threat.

That's what he WANTS you to think!

 

[XMark]

Yes, no question about it. Though if it was a woman I would have second thoughts. And if it was a child I probably wouldn't do it no matter what's at stake.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

First problem is that how do I know if the guy who is talking to me is really trust worthy enough and how is he in a position to know this? Why doesn't he kill him if it is so important? These questions need to be answered before I can even make a desicion, because I am not doing it if it some random hobo that used to much of the good stuff saying that.