Justifiable?

[Phoenix]

After having a fascinating discussion in the chat, I decided to make a topic about it.

Consider that 100,000 lives hang in the balance. Only you are able to save them (insert deux ex machina here). However, a misguided innocent stands in your way. Assume that the only way to get him out of your way is too kill him. Do you kill this innocent and save the 100,000 lives, or do you spare his life and allow 100,000 to perish?

Note, the scenario is incomplete. Depending on a person's reply, I can take it from there.

 

[RikuHeroOfDark]

100,000 lives outweigh the needs of one life. Like the old saying goes "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", or something like that. To risk 100,000 innocent lives for one innocent life is completely unnecessary and unwise. Now it also depends on the circumstance... i.e. say the one life is your close brother compared to a 100,000 unknown innocent people, most, if not all, people would choose there brother over say the other 100,000 people.

 

[Devious]

I know exactly where you're getting this from Phoenix but as Riku said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If you were in say the army *hint hint* and you are ordered to save the lives of that 100,000 you must at all costs do what you can to save them, even if it means slaying one person who may stand in your way. Hell, even if you must die doing it, you must try to save the 100,000 people who's lives hang in the balance.

 

[Phoenix]

Nothing to do with war.

This is heading in the direction that I wanted. Phase 2. Let's move it up a notch. How many would you kill? 5? 10? 1,000? 99,999? Where do you draw the line? Is there a line?

Moreover, would you kill your best friend to save 100,000? Your mom? Your dad? The Pope?

 

[RikuHeroOfDark]

Nothing to do with war.

This is heading in the direction that I wanted. Phase 2. Let's move it up a notch. How many would you kill? 5? 10? 1,000? 99,999? Where do you draw the line? Is there a line?

Moreover, would you kill your best friend you save 100,000? Your mom? Your dad? The Pope?

I would kill the pope to save 100,00 people(cause the pope is no better than a normal person to me) but i doubt i would be able to kill my friend, brother, or anyone i was close to, just to save the life of innocent people i dont or will never know. I would draw the line at about 50,000 people though.

 

[Devious]

That's a little steep of an incline to face. But I would have to say personally I would be facing a very difficult decision that might give up the lives of 100,000 people. My good will would probably make me sacrifice the lives of the 100,000 to save my family member or friend. But in logical terms I would have to kill them to save the 100,000 still, though I could not bring myself to do it, that's what I would choose.

Human emotion is what will play the biggest role, it's a totally relative question. Though you will most likely hear the answer "I'd sacrifice the 100,000" just because you don't know them. Just because you don't know someone doesn't mean you should let them die - by any means.

 

[Phoenix]

That's not good will. That's pure, unadulterated selfishness. Because *you* have a bond with them, because they mean something to *you*, both of you are willing to let 100,000 die. The person you thought about sacrificing also has friends, family and bonds. However, you are willing to kill him, but you can't kill your best friend at the cost of 100,000 human lives because then *you'd* lose something, wouldn't you?

I would draw the line at about 50,000 people though.

Oh? You are willing to kill 50K, this saving 50K people, but not 75K, which would save 25K people in total. What's the difference?

 

[Johnny Stooge]

Funny how you all assume killing another person is a relatively easy task. Taking life should be more than just a passing thought.

Pho and I have had our conversation. Even though we're unfinished. But for everyone else, my stance is that I'd want to be able to save those thousands of people, but I just don't know I can kill another person.

I would draw the line at about 50,000 people though.

Are you serious? Are you telling me you have no problem in killing 50,000 people? You may as well have just let that one person live.

 

[Athletics Legend]

There is no line, i would just let the 100k live...

And yes, human emotions do play part, it depends if that person is close to you, it also depends on how much you are attatched to them..

 

[shinra derp]

Noone's mentioned it yet, but also ways to die and the possibility of the 100,000 living afterwards comes into the argument. Say the 100,000 are all people 85+ in age and the 1 person (or group of peoples) is 18. This will probably sound cold but the 100,000 don't have long for this world whereas the group of 18 year olds still have their entire lives ahead of them. Would the comdemned 100,000 be killed quick and painlessly while you had to mince your way through someone painfully or vice-versa? There's a lot to ponder about here...

 

[Phoenix]

Funny how you all assume killing another person is a relatively easy task. Taking life should be more than just a passing thought.

And why's that, Stooge?

Pho and I have had our conversation. Even though we're unfinished. But for everyone else, my stance is that I'd want to be able to save those thousands of people, but I just don't know I can kill another person.

And we agreed that, thanks to your conscience, thousands may die, no?

Are you serious? Are you telling me you have no problem in killing 50,000 people? You may as well have just let that one person live.

Uh, ya, and the 100,000 die. By killing 50K, you ultimately save 50K more,

And yes, human emotions do play part, it depends if that person is close to you, it also depends on how much you are attatched to them..

Again, sparing them because you know them is incredibly selfish.

 

[The Jordan]

For me, it equally depends on who they are and how many people are in each (for want of a better word) party. I would allow say, 10k of 90 year olds die if the ones who needed to die to save them were as little as around 10 children.
Conversely, wether it's one or one million people I judge in my morals to be bad people I would not kill anyone at all to save them. Christ, I'm starting to sound like Light Yagami/Kira.

Just my opinion. Not by any means suggesting it is ethically correct or justified, it's just how I am.

 

[Johnny Stooge]

And why's that, Stooge?

You're killing someone who has a family. Has people that love them. You're killing another person. Would you like it if someone put no thought into killing you? Only an insane person would kill another without a thought.

And we agreed that, thanks to your conscience, thousands may die, no?

You're asking me to choose between the lesser of two evils. No matter what decision, I'm causing someone's death. Through inaction, or by putting the bullet in their head. I want to save the thousands, but it all depends.

Uh, ya, and the 100,000 die. By killing 50K, you ultimately save 50K more.

But in that scenario, you've still got to gun down 50k people. You're asking too much of one person.

 

[The Jordan]

The method of killing is a big influence, too. Killing you with your bare hands of shooting or stabbing or somthing would be a lot harder than signing a death sentence or pushing a button because you don't necesarily see it happen and will probably suffer less guilt.

 

[Sky Bolt]

How exactly are we assuming that these 100,000 people are going to die? How would killing the others save them? Are they worth saving? I'd have to know these things before I could make a decision.

 

[Laughing Stock]

You're killing someone who has a family. Has people that love them. You're killing another person. Would you like it if someone put no thought into killing you? Only an insane person would kill another without a thought.

Many people kill for many reasons, many of whom are sound of mind and body. Yet it is thoughtlessness that is so often the bane of others. Do not be so quick to judge murder and death as the subjects only the mentally impared are skilled in.

You're asking me to choose between the lesser of two evils. No matter what decision, I'm causing someone's death. Through inaction, or by putting the bullet in their head. I want to save the thousands, but it all depends.

Pardon me for asking what you may percieve to be an innately foolish question, but do you actually define killing, of any kind, to be 'evil'?

But in that scenario, you've still got to gun down 50k people. You're asking too much of one person.

6 million Jews were put to death, and although they were murdered at various locations and by various means, at the source of this genocide stands one man. I'm sure I don't have to name him.

 

[The Jordan]

at the source of this genocide stands one man. I'm sure I don't have to name him.

Lu Bu. No seriously. With the holocaust, the guards who pulled the triggers and administered all kinds of executions chose to do it. If they disagreed with it that much then they would have said no (no matter what this would provoke). Square Moustache Man killed them indirectly. He facilitated their deaths, but didn't commit the murders himself. Off subject, I know, but may be relevant.

 

[Laughing Stock]

Lu Bu. No seriously. With the holocaust, the guards who pulled the triggers and administered all kinds of executions chose to do it. If they disagreed with it that much then they would have said no (no matter what this would provoke). Square Moustache Man killed them indirectly. He facilitated their deaths, but didn't commit the murders himself. Off subject, I know, but may be relevant.

Howecer, as you well know, these men had either already seen the horrors of war and cared not for the moralistic viewpoints of others or they had been so thoroughly brainwashed they truly believed what they did was 'right'. Either way, they were soldiers, and soldiers do what they are ordered, submitting all blame for their actions to their direct commander, who in turn confers accusations towards he who gave him orders, and so on up the chain of command until we reach the top.

Indeed, he did not pull the trigger over the head of anyone himself, yet he no doubt monitored the analogous treatment and subsequent execution of many others with a certain air of grim satisfaction if perhaps not capering around the concentration camps, clapping his hands and grinning sadistically.

 

[snowdog]

I'd take the Utilitarian approach. Greatest good for the greatest number, that whole kitten caboodle.

Either way, someone will die in this situation. I'd rather have the death of a single person on my conscience than 100,000 of them.

So I'd save the 100,000.

 

[CK the Fat]

A classic question: What is the value of a human life?

Because this is an impossible scenario, it's also impossible to give an accurate answer.

It's easy to say I'd kill the 1 for the 50,000, but when actually put in the scenario, when you have to hear the person pleaing for their life inbetween fits of hysterical sobs, it suddenly becomes a tad bit harder... especially if you take the "humane" approach.