Poll: Kill one, save millions: A Question of Morals.
- Thread starter Instant K4rma
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd need two bullets. One for him, one for myself.
I could never live in a world clouded by a bloody lie if I were the creator of said safe haven. It'd just feel wrong.
I could never live in a world clouded by a bloody lie if I were the creator of said safe haven. It'd just feel wrong.
Scenario 1 - Killing random person: Sure. If said source of information can prove that this man will cause the death of millions (or more), then I'd be willing to take him out (as in kill him).
Scenario 2 - Killing someone close to me: Ah! This is a harder question. It really depends on motive for me during this scenario. Why are they killing millions of people (or causing the death of millions of people)? If it is something I can agree with or understand, I might be more apt to help them if anything.
Overall, tough question to answer.
Scenario 2 - Killing someone close to me: Ah! This is a harder question. It really depends on motive for me during this scenario. Why are they killing millions of people (or causing the death of millions of people)? If it is something I can agree with or understand, I might be more apt to help them if anything.
Overall, tough question to answer.
Wow. You always prepare for that moment, but when it finally comes... it's like a shotgun to the face (yeah, I'm not good with comparisons)... *sniff*... ninja'd your way directly into my heart...tellmeimaninja said:
And if that's you in your profile pic may I ask you for a signature too (even if they are turned off here)?
Those millions of peoples may be super villains and the one that you shoot is a super hero that was going to kill those super villains. But I would still probably shoot him, not taking any chances here.
I don't know, it sounds a little too much like the Milgram experiment. I'm supposed to kill this guy because someone with authority is telling me that it will save millions of lives? hmmm....
I wouldn't, but maybe only because of the fact that I know full well the world is overpopulated anyway, and that my lack of action should not be seen as a cause, rather the opposite.
This goes for wars too - there's one, just one good thing that comes out of wars. And it's a bit of a shitty one too, but hey.
Yes, I can be a cold bastard.
This goes for wars too - there's one, just one good thing that comes out of wars. And it's a bit of a shitty one too, but hey.
Yes, I can be a cold bastard.
For clarification: Am I told his death will save millions, or is it a straight-out fact (i.e. am I being possibly manipulated, or can they proove without doubt that his death will save millions)
If it's a fact, he's a dead man
If it's up in the air as to if millions ARE at stake, then no, I couldn't
If it's a fact, he's a dead man
If it's up in the air as to if millions ARE at stake, then no, I couldn't
I don't know... I mean, do you mean the person who told me that millions of lives could be saved was definately telling the truth? I mean, if they were, I would do it. One life is a lot less than millions. But if it was a case where I wasn't sure if they were telling the truth or not, I wouldn't.
Maybe I overlooked this. IGNORE ME.
Maybe I overlooked this. IGNORE ME.
Yes, if it was proved to me without a doubt that the millions being saved was true
No otherwise...simple as that...
like how Batman shot and killed Darksied...he knew without a doubt that if he didn't, there goes the universe...
No otherwise...simple as that...
like how Batman shot and killed Darksied...he knew without a doubt that if he didn't, there goes the universe...
Depends, would that be the end of it? How do we know the person telling you too kill him to save millions of lives wont just parade another stranger in there and tell you to kill him too fro the same reason? over and over ? and if you dont do it, a million people die? so when do you stop?
If the situation were that simple, yes. But in the real world, it never is.
For a start, you don't know why it would save "millions". You don't know which "millions". Basically, you need to be better informed on the scenario to make the decision.
For example, in the context of a time travel situation where you kill someone and it will save millions of people because said person never becomes able to carry out the act, you never know what other consequences there may be.
I know that some sociologists like to point out that if Hitler never existed, the diaspora from WWII would never have happened, and the current multicultural bent of Western society would be greatly diminished. That means that the Allied countries could all potentially have ended up as obsessed with racial purity as Nazi Germany, except within the context that they'd be the first to have nuclear weaponry.
It would be all too easy for nuclear war to occur in that box of fireworks. So you can see the kind of can of worms people can open in doing this sort of thing.
Fiction really explores this scenario a lot. What if you're being manipulated in being made to kill the guy? What if it's a trap to frame you for killing an innocent man? What if in saving millions, you also conversely kill billions from some unknown consequence?
The point is that if you're saving millions, that is a massive act and the consequences can be very far reaching, in fact, so much so that you can no longer assume that it's ultimately a good action. While saving life is absolutely an inherently good thing to do at the base, we never stop to think, "is one of those millions just as bad as this guy, or worse?" I'm not saying that it should stop you, since you probably wouldn't know at the time, but even that is a possibility.
You can ruin the future by thoughtlessly, instinctively or simplistically engaging in such an act. You would have to have a very sound philosophy behind your decision to even begin to have a chance of mitigating the worst possible results.
If you had no further information, and no other choices to gain more, and only just one chance, I suppose you'd be forced to do it by circumstance. Really, the person who informed you is the one behind the action anyway. In obeying, you would merely be a cog in the machine to them - if quite tainted by the process of murder.
For a start, you don't know why it would save "millions". You don't know which "millions". Basically, you need to be better informed on the scenario to make the decision.
For example, in the context of a time travel situation where you kill someone and it will save millions of people because said person never becomes able to carry out the act, you never know what other consequences there may be.
I know that some sociologists like to point out that if Hitler never existed, the diaspora from WWII would never have happened, and the current multicultural bent of Western society would be greatly diminished. That means that the Allied countries could all potentially have ended up as obsessed with racial purity as Nazi Germany, except within the context that they'd be the first to have nuclear weaponry.
It would be all too easy for nuclear war to occur in that box of fireworks. So you can see the kind of can of worms people can open in doing this sort of thing.
Fiction really explores this scenario a lot. What if you're being manipulated in being made to kill the guy? What if it's a trap to frame you for killing an innocent man? What if in saving millions, you also conversely kill billions from some unknown consequence?
The point is that if you're saving millions, that is a massive act and the consequences can be very far reaching, in fact, so much so that you can no longer assume that it's ultimately a good action. While saving life is absolutely an inherently good thing to do at the base, we never stop to think, "is one of those millions just as bad as this guy, or worse?" I'm not saying that it should stop you, since you probably wouldn't know at the time, but even that is a possibility.
You can ruin the future by thoughtlessly, instinctively or simplistically engaging in such an act. You would have to have a very sound philosophy behind your decision to even begin to have a chance of mitigating the worst possible results.
If you had no further information, and no other choices to gain more, and only just one chance, I suppose you'd be forced to do it by circumstance. Really, the person who informed you is the one behind the action anyway. In obeying, you would merely be a cog in the machine to them - if quite tainted by the process of murder.
Don't be stupid. I would have absolutely no reason to trust you in that situation. That's just stupid. Hell, I'd probably just hold you at gunpoint and call the police on you in that situation. Stupid.Velvo said:
I'm just being realistic here. It would be a logical choice to kill one to save millions but I am human and it would be far more difficult to kill a child than an adult. And of course I would weigh any and all other options and only kill anyone as an absolute last resort.Zombie_Fish said:
Ok, I clicked yes, I could (or I hope I could). If it was someone I knew though... I'd want to know how the millions were gonna be killed by his/her continued existence. If it was something like "Alien Overlords messing with their new pets. Kill this one or we'll bomb somewhere" I'd probably just commit suicide.Instant K4rma said: