Poll: Kill one, save millions: A Question of Morals.
- Thread starter Instant K4rma
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In that situation you see a plane and you shoot at a plane.Thunderhorse31 said:
In the question in the OP, you see a man. In fact, I'll let Jude Law take it from here:
"He doesn't know you exist, but at that moment you're closer to him than anyone else on earth. You see his face through the sign. You see whether he shaved or not. You can see whether he's married if he's got a wedding ring. It's not like firing at a distant shape. It's not just a uniform. It's a man's face. Those faces don't go away. They come back and they get replaced by more faces."
That's pretty appropriate, except he knows you exist.
If I Had Proof that killing him would save even One person? Probably.
But the word of the guy putting the gun in my hand wouldn't do it.
But the word of the guy putting the gun in my hand wouldn't do it.
An unarmed man? No. I know it's a common mistake a lot of "heroes" make, they see someone without a weapon, underestimate him, get killed/beaten, then they fight again...
But no. Sure, if he was in front of a switch that says "DOOMSDAY DEVICE ACTIVATION WOOOO!!!!", I would most likely.
Quoting House, "If you think your life is worth less than the lives of other people, sign a donor card and kill yourself".
But no. Sure, if he was in front of a switch that says "DOOMSDAY DEVICE ACTIVATION WOOOO!!!!", I would most likely.
What if someone wanted to kill you? Your family? Your friends?John Smyth said:
Quoting House, "If you think your life is worth less than the lives of other people, sign a donor card and kill yourself".
I would not shoot the man unless he was armed with the means to kill millions on the spot and was about to start killing. If he was a madman with a nuclear bomb rigged to go off unless he died, yeah, I'd shoot him. If, however, the deaths of millions are not in any way his fault, I would never harm him in any way.
This problem is just like the trolley problem, only on a larger scale, and my answer is the same. Every person matters. No (innocent) life is worth ending to save another, unless the owner of said life decides to sacrifice himself/herself to save someone else.
By not shooting the man, millions of innocent people might die. You are not responsible for any of it though. By shooting the man, only one innocent dies, but you are directly responsible for that death. I couldn't do it. I wouldn't do it. Because, no matter what is at stake, it is never acceptable to kill an innocent person.
This problem is just like the trolley problem, only on a larger scale, and my answer is the same. Every person matters. No (innocent) life is worth ending to save another, unless the owner of said life decides to sacrifice himself/herself to save someone else.
By not shooting the man, millions of innocent people might die. You are not responsible for any of it though. By shooting the man, only one innocent dies, but you are directly responsible for that death. I couldn't do it. I wouldn't do it. Because, no matter what is at stake, it is never acceptable to kill an innocent person.
To allow death to happen when there is a guarunteed chance of saving that life is pretty much the same as murder.John Smyth said:
By doing nothing when you are given the power to change it makes you indirectly responsible for those deaths. Given the parameters of the OP's question, I'd rather sacrifice myself to save killing the innocent, but in that scenario, failing to kill the innocent leaves you partly responsible for their deaths, making you at least part-guilty of murder anyway...
There, I fixed it for you.Instant K4rma said:
But seriously. If i KNEW that this action would save millions of lives then it's a no brainier. However if it were someone close to me then i would probably weigh them as worth more to me than millions of unrelated (to me) people.
This is a classic thought experiment often used in conjunction with an explanation for utilitarianism.
When i first heard such an ultimatum, it was a much harder decision:
You and (let's say) 4 other friends are in a cave, suddenly the entrance you used is blocked by a cave-in, you find an exit but it's a small hole. The first person you send through the hole gets stuck in the hole. Now the cave is filling up with water, you don't know why, but it's getting up past everyone's chest. You are equipped with a knife, so you could cut your 'stuck' friend into bits to get out of the cave. Or you could stay and likely you and your 3 friends will die.
tl;dr: would you kill a friend to save yourself and 3 friends?
In things like this I tend to hold the utilitarian perspective, though when the stakes change there are instances when I would act in a way that is considered morally wrong in the utilitarian viewpoint. (For instance, I would sooner save 1 family member than 3 strangers, but I would sooner save a city of people than 1 family member, while there's no easy way to quantify when my actions would change (and there's no philosophical way to justify it), that's just the way it is)
When i first heard such an ultimatum, it was a much harder decision:
You and (let's say) 4 other friends are in a cave, suddenly the entrance you used is blocked by a cave-in, you find an exit but it's a small hole. The first person you send through the hole gets stuck in the hole. Now the cave is filling up with water, you don't know why, but it's getting up past everyone's chest. You are equipped with a knife, so you could cut your 'stuck' friend into bits to get out of the cave. Or you could stay and likely you and your 3 friends will die.
tl;dr: would you kill a friend to save yourself and 3 friends?
In things like this I tend to hold the utilitarian perspective, though when the stakes change there are instances when I would act in a way that is considered morally wrong in the utilitarian viewpoint. (For instance, I would sooner save 1 family member than 3 strangers, but I would sooner save a city of people than 1 family member, while there's no easy way to quantify when my actions would change (and there's no philosophical way to justify it), that's just the way it is)
no simply because I don't know him, he could be a crazy depressive making it up to get someone to end him
If I could shoot someone without consequences I would, so if I also get to save millions of people...
The question depends largely on how certain I am that the death of this man will spare the lives of millions. Or, to put it more generally, it depends upon just how certain I am of the ramifications of his murder (or lack thereof).
No i wouldn't kill him this world is getting overpopulated anyways unless I would get killed to