Could you kill thousands of people?

[Steve]

Before reading further, read the first two posts in this thread (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10598).  They aren't very long.

So, here's my question.  Suppose you found yourself in a position where divulging certain information or taking a certain action would result in a more decisive and long-term peaceful solution to a terrible conflict, but that doing so would result in the immediate and horrible deaths of thousands, if not tens of thousands of people?

If you don't act, fewer people will die, now, but more people will probably die in the long run than if you don't act.

If you do act, the immediate consequences would be awful to contemplate, but in the long term, those deaths would not have been in vain, as the lasting peace would be solid and true.

Could you doom that many people to death, in the short term?  In simpler terms, does the good of the many outweigh the good of the fewer, or is all human life equally sacred and the deliberate sacrifice of such can never be condoned, no matter the cause?

I can say that I believe I could make that decision...no, actually, I'm certain that I could distance myself enough long enough to make that decision.  I'm equally certain that I would end up putting a bullet through my brain, years down the road, as a result of making that decision.

What say you?

[IamZed]

stevent, I don’t follow. We are most certainly in the process of killing thousands of people.
Are you asking do you oppose this war?

[ethics]

I would definitely put a bullet in my head.

[HaYwIrE]

Originally posted by stevent
I'm equally certain that I would end up putting a bullet through my brain, years down the road, as a result of making that decision.Originally posted by ethics
I would definitely put a bullet in my head.
Weak. :rolleyes:

I'd kill 'em in a heartbeat without looking back if I knew it would save 1000 times, 100 times, or even 10 times more lives in the near and "<i>not-so-distant</i>" future.

I would feel no remorse what-so-ever in gunning down every last one of Hussein's "<i>elite</i>" Republican Guards... execution style. I'd probably get a rise out of putting a bullet between Sadam's eyes.

And as for the French??? Well, we won't go there. ;)

The world is daily becoming a smaller and smaller place to live. There is no room on it for those who do not wish to join the rest of the civilized world in working toward the common goal of peace and prosperity.

[Steve]

Not talking about Hussein's guards, or armed combatants, or anyone in particular.

I'm talking in broad generalities.

In a group of 10,000 people is one who will become the next Hitler, but you don't know which one.

Would you kill, in cold blood, all 10,000? To prevent a second Holocaust?

The question has nothing to do with the war in Iraq - that's why it's not posted in that forum.&nbsp; There's more to the world than this little war.

[HaYwIrE]

Originally posted by stevent
In a group of 10,000 people is one who will become the next Hitler, but you don't know which one.

Would you kill, in cold blood, all 10,000? To prevent a second Holocaust?
Well, let's just say that the French are lucky Sadam and/or Osama isn't hiding out in Paris with my finger on "<i>The Button</i>". :)

Or <b><i>arrrrrrre</b></i> they??? <i>Hmmmmmmm</i> Now where <b>ISSSSSS</b> that button? :_

[Misu]

So, 9,999 others have to die because they have the misfortune of being in a group with the next Hitler?

I couldn't do it. I can't kill 9,999 innocents because 1 person might be the next hitler. And why should I soil my soul to prevent another person from making choices? Why should I ruin the rest of my life, knowing that I killed 9,999 innocent people just so I could take out 1 bad guy?

[Andy]

Originally posted by stevent
I'm talking in broad generalities.

In a group of 10,000 people is one who will become the next Hitler, but you don't know which one.


How would I have the foresight to know that ONE of the 10,000 was going to be the next "Hitler" yet still not be able to know which one?

Seems very hypothetical, almost to the point of hyperbole.

If I "knew" that one of them was to be what I think, then I guess I would use my super powers a little more to look into it even further and find out exactly WHICH one it was, and take him out alone.

But since current international laws prohibit the taking out of madmen like our current target, yes, I guess some "innocent" followers of him must also suffer his fate.

[HaYwIrE]

Originally posted by Misu
Why should I ruin the rest of my life, knowing that I killed 9,999 innocent people just so I could take out 1 bad guy? And when that one bad person that you COULD have killed goes and slaughters, tortures, oppresses, rapes mangles and mutilates millions of people, how will you feel knowing you had the chance to take him out at a mere cost of 9,999 lives?

That's one of the things that makes the difference between a good Leader and a Liberal <small>(OOPS... IT SLIPPED!)</small>. Hard-nosed decision making.

[Steve]

Hey, everyone, pick up on the sarcasm, here:

The word "Philosphy" is in the title of this forum. If you try to take this too literally, it kind of loses a lot in the discussion, OK?

No superpowers are required, no specific example is even required.

Try to think about the question with any specifics in mind, alright?

We now return to our normal, non-sarcastical mode.....

[Domh]

Its a ratio choice.

Assuming we can see into the future, which is what we are doing here:

If 1 person in a group of 100 will definitely slaughter 1000 people next year, would you kill 100 to save 1000? Would you kill 5 to save 6? The decision making process comes down to a personal 'ratio of acceptability'.

Would you kill 1 person if you knew for certain they were going to kill 1 person tomorrow? Then I guess you believe in the death penalty - fair play to you, but you need to realize that you are walking around killing people, and somebody else out there who can see the future as well is hunting you down because they know you are going to kill somebody tomorrow who is going to kill somebody tomorrow. Wrap yer bean around that!

So I guess it becomes different with numbers, doesnt it. Its sorta similar to the "for 10 bucks would you..." question, that changes rapidly as the fiscal reward increases - and yes, I would eat shit for money - but not 10 bucks... and yes, at a point I cannot ascertain I would kill 'some' to save 'more', but I do not know where that point is, and I sincerely doubt any of us really do, unless we have ever been presented with such a decision. To say we can make such a decision and ascertain the ratio for ourselves without actually facing the reality is, I think, to be a bit cock-sure in the face of overwhelming horror.

Great discussion Steven, as usual.

:thumbsup:

[mikepd]

Originally posted by stevent
I'm talking in broad generalities.

In a group of 10,000 people is one who will become the next Hitler, but you don't know which one.

Would you kill, in cold blood, all 10,000? To prevent a second Holocaust?




Well, since we are talking about a hypothetical, let's hypothesize.

Obviously, we want to prevent a Holocaust at all cost as the loss of even 10,000 lives is nothing compared to millions of lives lost and the resulting economic and social disruption.

Is mass killing the only solution? If I know where the group of people are located, I round them all up, place them in a very, very secure area and any escape attempt results in death. They are treated well, the situation is explained to them, they are treated as world patriots and so forth. Since there is only one who is going to become the next madman, 9,999 should have the decency to go along with this as the alternative is to go with the hard option.

For if the containment plan did not work out, I would sacrifice 10,000 to save untold millions. I would regret it, of course. But if I did nothing and let millions die by my inaction, then I would put a bullet in my brain.

[Fiona]

Would I declare 9,999 innocents instantly dead for the high probability of killing this beast? No! I could not do that, too uncertin and no life is MERE (grrr at Haywire :) )
HOWEVER, would I personally hunt him down and kill him myself? YEPPERS! Would I risk the possibility of 9,999 dying on our side and theirs to secure his certain death? Oh yeahhhhhhhh!

But, I could not send 9,999 to certain death because there is no way to be sure he will be the 10,000th. Also a weapon of that sort I am against because of it's environmental impact :)

In the Dead Zone by Stephen King they pose that question, knowing what you know now... if you had the chance, would you kill Hitler? I'd try like heck to think of something else, exile imprisonment, but YES! I think as much as I value my eternal soul I would have to give it up for that cause.

[Fiona]

a bullet in your brain? just like men to want to make mess and what a waste of a good bullet... I can mix you up a concoction that is quick and easy with little or no mess :happy:

[Misu]

Originally posted by HaYwIrE
And when that one bad person that you COULD have killed goes and slaughters, tortures, oppresses, rapes mangles and mutilates millions of people, how will you feel knowing you had the chance to take him out at a mere cost of 9,999 lives?

That's one of the things that makes the difference between a good Leader and a Liberal <small>(OOPS... IT SLIPPED!)</small>. Hard-nosed decision making.

Mere cost ?

A good leader is someone who weighs everything - given the small tiny amount of information, I cannot declare 9,999 innocents to die. A good leader isn't someone who takes the first bits of information and runs with it.

The thing about philosophy is that information is required to make a what-if decision. What-if the next Hitler is in that group of 10,000 isn't enough information for me - how do I know he's there? Because someone told me they were? How do they know this? And is there concrete proof, evidence supporting that claim? And is this the only way to avoid the next holocaust? Based on the answers to these questions, and the answers to any questions thereafter, is what will influence my decision.

I'm sorry, but to say "yah I'll kill 10,000 people, including the 9,999 innocents, just to ensure the next holocaust doesn't happen" based on no evidence - I can't do that. If that makes me a liberal.... *shrug* Whatever.

[Domh]

Misu you arent philosophizing, you are insisting on analyzing - and thats not what Steven is after here.

Philosophical inquiry begins, sometimes, with a set of assumptions so that there is a foundation from which to build theories and explore ideas.

In this case, the foundation is a hypothetical:

Youve gone back in time to find yourself outside an arena in a desert. Inside the arena are 1000 people, and 1 of them IS Hitler. You know it for certain. No doubt. Nobody will leave the arena for hours. Nobody will be airlifted out or dig a tunnel to safety. The arena is scheduled for demolition the next day. Nobody cares what happens to the arena. The arena is in a crater in the desert. Its demolition will harm nothing but the arena and those inside it. You have a bomb already planted in the areana that will destroy the arena and all 1000 people in it. You are outside with a remote transmitter that can set off the bomb. If you move from your hiding place, you will be shot by guards.

Would you kill the 1000 to avoid the Holocaust that WILL happen if you DONT kill him?

All questions regarding anything other than 'would you kill the 1000 to ensure the death of the 1 within the 1000' are immaterial to the inquest.

[Paladin]

What if... what if... what if...

The fact is that we cannot know the future. We do not execute a juvinile who robbed a candy store because he might, or even most likely, will kill someone in the future.

Going in and killing thousands or tens of thousands of people to maybe stop the killing of maybe tens to hundreds of thousands later is no different than gunning down everyone who walks out of a gun store with their latest toy.

[Fiona]

Originally posted by Paladin
What if... what if... what if...

The fact is that we cannot know the future. We do not execute a juvinile who robbed a candy store because he might, or even most likely, will kill someone in the future.

Going in and killing thousands or tens of thousands of people to maybe stop the killing of maybe tens to hundreds of thousands later is no different than gunning down everyone who walks out of a gun store with their latest toy.
I thought we were theorizing about a person who had already done enough to ensure he would do more (?) I guess I missed the point

[IamZed]

If 9,999 people had to die to get the future Hitler, I would assume my intelegance was incompetent, and their assessment of the future Hitler was in doubt.

[IamZed]

If you are just coaching a smaller question such as would I kill one to save three, I would. Any time.
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">There is a thing called reciprocity though. This question really can not be dealt with in absence of that reality. If you make me kill one to save three, I will kill one hundred in revenge. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

[Domh]

Some of the responses here are most fascinating, I think, because they clarify why so many people despise and avoid philosophy.

Its not always easy to suppose with a purpose.

;)

[Fiona]

Originally posted by Domhain
Misu you arent philosophizing, you are insisting on analyzing - and thats not what Steven is after here.

Philosophical inquiry begins, sometimes, with a set of assumptions so that there is a foundation from which to build theories and explore ideas.

In this case, the foundation is a hypothetical:

Youve gone back in time to find yourself outside an arena in a desert. Inside the arena are 1000 people, and 1 of them IS Hitler. You know it for certain. No doubt. Nobody will leave the arena for hours. Nobody will be airlifted out or dig a tunnel to safety. The arena is scheduled for demolition the next day. Nobody cares what happens to the arena. The arena is in a crater in the desert. Its demolition will harm nothing but the arena and those inside it. You have a bomb already planted in the areana that will destroy the arena and all 1000 people in it. You are outside with a remote transmitter that can set off the bomb. If you move from your hiding place, you will be shot by guards.

Would you kill the 1000 to avoid the Holocaust that WILL happen if you DONT kill him?

All questions regarding anything other than 'would you kill the 1000 to ensure the death of the 1 within the 1000' are immaterial to the inquest.

duhhhhhhhh :rolleyes: :nut:
if ya dumb it down my answer is still the same.

[jfcjrus]

Originally posted by stevent
If you don't act, fewer people will die, now, but more people will probably die in the long run than if you don't act.

If you do act, the immediate consequences would be awful to contemplate, but in the long term, those deaths would not have been in vain, as the lasting peace would be solid and true.

Could you doom that many people to death, in the short term?What say you?
To me, there's a bacic fallacy in the supposition of this question.

That is, exactly how did it come about that I would be responsible for making this decision?
Cannot these 'many people' slated to die take responsibility for their own fate?
Cannot they rise above the particular circumstance and say, 'screw this, I'm not going wimpering into the night'?

Perhaps, one might ask the peoples, 'are you going to risk death by fighting for your right to exist, or are you just going to let someone control you, or march you to your death?'

Simplistic, I know.
But, I've often wondered exactly how 10 guards can control 1000 people that don't want to be controled. For that to work, the 1000 had to have given up their spirit.

So, I'm to kill 9,999 innocents to get the 1 evil tyrant that will kill 100,000 in the future?
Nope.
To me, it's up to the 9,999 innocents to ferret out and kill the evil one themselves.
Not one innocent need be sacrificed.
If our human society and human spirit can't handle that, then it needs work.

But, I wouldn't be surprised if I missed some supposition in this theoretical debate that was obvious to everyone else.
If so, my appologies. Just ignore me.

Regards,

[ShinyTop]

The quick responses that include at least two plans to commit suicide when faced with issues of this type. What I find interesting is that we are making these decisions every time we go to the polls.

We expect our elected officials to make similar decisions. We elect them and we give them the power to kill hundreds of millions of people if they determine they must to defend us. We further authorize them to issue orders to the citizens of our country who have volunteered to defend our country. And those citizens who happen to be in the military must make decisions in time of war to kill people on both sides of the war. An attack on an enemy position may be necessary to win the war to defend America or her interests. But the attack will most likely result in deaths, deaths of people the commander hopefully holds dear.

And then we also say to the commander, follow certain rules. Even if it means loss of lives of citizens assigned to you, you must not use certain weapons and you must follow certain honorable rules, such as honoring white flags, etc. And while you do all of this we, your fellow citizens and the loved ones of the men we entrust to you, will be watching every move you make and evaluating you. If you disobey the rules we will crucify you and if you lose our loved ones we will crucify you. If your rate of advance is too deliberate, we will castigate you as too cautious. If your rate of advance is rapid we will belittle the care with which you protect your lines of supplies and we will consider you negligent in your duties.

How do we find these people, people with the moral courage to do the right thing when faced with choices that members here would commit suicide if they had to make? Why do people like this keep volunteering to serve when large numbers of their fellow citizens are calling them killers and war mongers, when fellow citizens consider them blood thirsty or worse?

I think we need to thank whatever powers you believe in that these people were not all taught by the Oakland School system that has special events to show where war is always bad. I think we need to thank those omnipotent powers that men and women still grow up thinking for themselves and decide there are things worth fighting for. I think we should say thanks that enough people have faith in their government to let their government put them in harm’s way and to allow their government to determine when to apply power in defense of their country.

In this day of corrupt government, when it is evident that our government works for who contribute to their reelection coffers, we must consider it both fortuitous and miraculous that in times of national peril we still have government officials who make tough decisions to defend us. And we must consider it also miraculous that we still have dedicated men and women who will fight for a country so divided, for a government held in such universal contempt.

Philosophy be damned. The decisions we make every Election Day we make so we citizens can argue about the life and death decisions while others make them for us. We may not know in advance whether a particular leader will be required to make such a decision, but our ballot is giving them that right. Our ballots for the House and the Senate give them rights to declare war or to allow the President to make that decision. The philosophical question beginning this thread should be modified and asked before every national election.

[Fiona]

Originally posted by ShinyTop
The quick responses that include at least two plans to commit suicide when faced with issues of this type. What I find interesting is that we are making these decisions every time we go to the polls.

We expect our elected officials to make similar decisions. We elect them and we give them the power to kill hundreds of millions of people if they determine they must to defend us. We further authorize them to issue orders to the citizens of our country who have volunteered to defend our country. And those citizens who happen to be in the military must make decisions in time of war to kill people on both sides of the war. An attack on an enemy position may be necessary to win the war to defend America or her interests. But the attack will most likely result in deaths, deaths of people the commander hopefully holds dear.

And then we also say to the commander, follow certain rules. Even if it means loss of lives of citizens assigned to you, you must not use certain weapons and you must follow certain honorable rules, such as honoring white flags, etc. And while you do all of this we, your fellow citizens and the loved ones of the men we entrust to you, will be watching every move you make and evaluating you. If you disobey the rules we will crucify you and if you lose our loved ones we will crucify you. If your rate of advance is too deliberate, we will castigate you as too cautious. If your rate of advance is rapid we will belittle the care with which you protect your lines of supplies and we will consider you negligent in your duties.

How do we find these people, people with the moral courage to do the right thing when faced with choices that members here would commit suicide if they had to make? Why do people like this keep volunteering to serve when large numbers of their fellow citizens are calling them killers and war mongers, when fellow citizens consider them blood thirsty or worse?

I think we need to thank whatever powers you believe in that these people were not all taught by the Oakland School system that has special events to show where war is always bad. I think we need to thank those omnipotent powers that men and women still grow up thinking for themselves and decide there are things worth fighting for. I think we should say thanks that enough people have faith in their government to let their government put them in harm’s way and to allow their government to determine when to apply power in defense of their country.

In this day of corrupt government, when it is evident that our government works for who contribute to their reelection coffers, we must consider it both fortuitous and miraculous that in times of national peril we still have government officials who make tough decisions to defend us. And we must consider it also miraculous that we still have dedicated men and women who will fight for a country so divided, for a government held in such universal contempt.

Philosophy be damned. The decisions we make every Election Day we make so we citizens can argue about the life and death decisions while others make them for us. We may not know in advance whether a particular leader will be required to make such a decision, but our ballot is giving them that right. Our ballots for the House and the Senate give them rights to declare war or to allow the President to make that decision. The philosophical question beginning this thread should be modified and asked before every national election. my eyes misted up :thumbsup:

[Steve]

What I find absolutely fascinating about most of these answers, except for Haywire's, is the rationalizing, second-guessing, pleas for more information, all just to avoid answering the question.

People, it's a very simple question, let's not try to build a sandcastle city or construct some sort of convoluted logic bomb to avoid the issue.

Domhain drove straight to the point and, except for Haywire's unequivocal answer, no one has even come close, so far, to answering my question.

Let me try again:

Would you kill one person to save the lives of two others?

If not, why not?

If so, would you kill two people to save the lives of three others? Four to save the lives of 10 others? What is the critical ratio for you, and why?

[Fiona]

:( i thought i answered without analyzing... POOP-


anyhow, no I would not kill one person for two or three or ten thousand.... i take back all previous answers... WHY? I believe in God and Eternity...

[Biker]

Would I press the button? Yup.. What's 1,000 to the millions lost during WWII?

[ShinyTop]

yes, thought I answered too.

[cdw]

I would get my husband to do it. There's a woman behind every great man. ;-)

[Domh]

And if a woman is truly great, she'll let her man get behind her now and again.

;)

[Biker]

I am NOT going to go there. rofl

[cdw]

Well, being King does have it's rewards ya know. :o)

[Misu]

Originally posted by stevent
People, it's a very simple question, let's not try to build a sandcastle city or construct some sort of convoluted logic bomb to avoid the issue.
...

Would you kill one person to save the lives of two others?

If not, why not?



The thing is, it's not a simple question. And that wasn't the question - the question was: would you kill 9,999 innocent people, if the 10,000th person was the next Hitler.

If I had to kill just the 1 evil person, then yes I would do it. But that's not what you asked.

And if I kill 1 person who's going to kill, what does that make me? A KILLER.

[Steve]

And, still, you haven't answered the question!&nbsp; And I didn't say anything about the first 9,999 people being innocent.&nbsp; The question isn't about murdering 9,999 innocents, first, and then taking out the next Hitler.

It's about Hitler being somewhere in the group, for sure, but you don't know where and the only way to kill him is to kill all of them, all at once.

[Steve]

Fiona, you didn't answer the question, as asked. Your reply contained the caveat "high probability".

Shiny, I read your lengthy reply twice and still don't know what your answer, personally, would be. Forget about the voters, what would you do?

[IamZed]

My answer in short is no. If killing a thousand to get one bad man made sense, then killing all people to get all bad men would make sense.

[Domh]

Originally posted by IamZed
If killing a thousand to get one bad man made sense, then killing all people to get all bad men would make sense.

No it doesnt, Zed, because then everybody would be dead and there would be no issue. That people remain to live without the threat of the one bad man is part of the question. If the question integrates the non-existence of all people, there is no question.

"Could you kill thousands of people?"
"Yeah - where ya want em?"

I jest. Im having a Monty Python morning I think.

;)

[Steve]

Zed, interesting point. It kind of approaches the "ratio" issue from a different perspective:

Regardless of the actual ratio, when does the absolute number of people killed become excessive?

[ShinyTop]

My answer is yes.

[Misu]

Then you could just say "would you kill all young black males because there are future rapists and murderers within that group"

I still say no - I'm not killing a ton of people because 1 of them in the group is bad and will go on to do bad things. I can't do it.

When that 1 person goes on to be the next Hitler, I'll deal with him like the US has dealt with all former allies who've gone bad.

[IamZed]

I don’t believe in Hitler. Had he died another would have found the power gap and filled it. Killing Hitler would not stop WW2. Only killing Germany would. All you would accomplish is 9,999 innocent lives on your hands.

[Steve]

Ah, but Misu, I don't believe you're getting the point, yet.

By NOT killing "a ton of people", thousands or millions more WILL die. THAT is the crux of the question. Not the comparison of the value of 9,999 innocent lives to the 1 bad life, but rather the comparison to the value of vastly more innocent lives.

Let me ask it a different way:

Would you allow 10,000 people to die, through your inaction, even if the only action you could possibly take to save them would be to kill 1,000 others?

[ethics]

Stevent, I think everyone in this thread would kill themselves later when they understood what this is all about. Haywire would be the first.

There are numerous incidents of suicide by survivors of the Holocaust, and their "crime" was only that others perished while they still lived.

[jfcjrus]

Originally posted by stevent
And, still, you haven't answered the question!&nbsp; And I didn't say anything about the first 9,999 people being innocent.&nbsp; The question isn't about murdering 9,999 innocents, first, and then taking out the next Hitler.

It's about Hitler being somewhere in the group, for sure, but you don't know where and the only way to kill him is to kill all of them, all at once.
Please accept that I still may not truly understand your premise (due to my lack of intellectual sophistication).

But, my answer is NO.
I am NOT willing to plow through a bunch of human beings (innocent or not) to insure that I accomplish my objective of getting the 'one' that I want.
Damn, I would need better 'intellegence' than that!

How would I know for certain that one of the 'non-targets' wasn't a future leader that might lead us to peace on this planet?
Besides, what gives me the right?

Isn't this exercise a bit like 'taking the law into your own hands'?
I can think of a few posters, on this site, that might have some real world experience on how that often doesn't work too well.

I suspect that I'm not getting into the expected philosophical aspect of the question, because I'm too rooted in reality.
I apologize for my lack of imagination.

It would disappoint me if any civilized human being could act on the stated premise.
(See? I <i>told you</i> I'm not getting the point :) )
My answer is NO.
I'm done.

Regards,

[Steve]

I'll try to clarify, again.

It's not about the ONE versus the GROUP.

It's about the value of the GROUP compared to the value of a much larger GROUP.

[jfcjrus]

Originally posted by stevent
I'll try to clarify, again.

It's not about the ONE versus the GROUP.

It's about the value of the GROUP compared to the value of a much larger GROUP.
Nope, still a NO.
I can't think of anyone on this planet that I'd trust to be correct in making such a decision.
I can't think of anyone that I'd believe had the Right to do so.

I can hardly wait to hear the <i>correct</i> answer, as the post's, so far, seem to be lacking somehow.

Now I'm <i>really</i> done! ;)
Bye.

[Misu]

Stevent, I totally understand what your question is. And I've answered it several times. It seems to me you're not satisfied with my answer? That it's hard for you to believe that I would allow a person to live who would then go on to kill millions more?

I'm sorry, I just can't do it. I cannot kill 9k+ just to kill the 1 person who will then go and be the next Hitler. If you're not satisfied with that answer, and it makes me a "liberal" or whatever, I can't help that. I cannot do it - in the hypothetical. Sitting here on my computer, as my puppy tears up my office, I am saying NO, I can't do it. If I were in that situation, who knows?

[Domh]

Why wouldnt you do it?

[Fiona]

I think I finally did answer the question- but it's early, ???
My answer is NO! I am not a killer. I would hope to hell, he would die, if others die to, so be it. Itf he lives and millions die, so be it. I don't believe thats irresponsible. I simply believe in ahigher power.

[Misu]

Because I cannot accept that 9k+ people who have nothing to do with anything except they're stuck in the same group have to die as well.

From my understanding, this isn't like a war - this is more like a pre-emptive strike. I liken this to (and don't get pissed Dom ;) ) flattening Baghdad with a couple Atomic Bombs just because Saddam and a few of his top guys are sitting in a bunker within the city. Kill everyone in there because a horrible person with the potential to kill tons more is within their vicinity. It's not right.

[Steve]

Folks, there is no <u>right</u> answer. There never is, in philosophy. The point is to get you to think. And if I prod someone on various points of the question, it's because I want the entire question to be considered.

Try a different scenario.

A deadly, highly infectious virus has appeared in a small city, pop. 82,000. There is no cure. It kills within 48 hours. The only way to know someone has the virus is that they're dead.

So far, the population has been restrained within the city, and there have been no escapes from the quarantine. But unrest is building as more people die. Fear sets in and riots begin. A crowd masses near the checkpoint you control. It begins to surge toward the barriers.

Do you give the order to gun down the crowd, to prevent an outbreak of a virus that demonstrably can kill far more people?

[ShinyTop]

As I noted in my lengthly post above, we elect leaders and give them the authority to make the hard decisions. If they shyed away from making them I dare say we would not be free enough today to be holding this conversation.

The case submitted was that by letting the 1000 live you doomed 10,000. I did not see any ifs, ands or buts. Easy decision to make, much harder to live with. Changing the situation or tyring to read it differently of course affects the answer.

[Fiona]

Who said anything about a right answer... it's what WE would do... :) I answered :)

[Domh]

Originally posted by stevent
Try a different scenario... Do you give the order to gun down the crowd, to prevent an outbreak of a virus that demonstrably can kill far more people?

Yup.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

Dunno who wrote those words for Spock to say, but they are wise in many ways.

[ShinyTop]

You give the order. Either way you will not be able to live with your choice, but your job on the checkpoint is to protect the lives of the rest of the country. You do your job.

[Fiona]

Originally posted by stevent
Folks, there is no <u>right</u> answer. There never is, in philosophy. The point is to get you to think. And if I prod someone on various points of the question, it's because I want the entire question to be considered.

Try a different scenario.

A deadly, highly infectious virus has appeared in a small city, pop. 82,000. There is no cure. It kills within 48 hours. The only way to know someone has the virus is that they're dead.

So far, the population has been restrained within the city, and there have been no escapes from the quarantine. But unrest is building as more people die. Fear sets in and riots begin. A crowd masses near the checkpoint you control. It begins to surge toward the barriers.

Do you give the order to gun down the crowd, to prevent an outbreak of a virus that demonstrably can kill far more people? totally different sweetums... these people are "acting"... anyhoo, the philosophical question remains... the loss of life ratio... I do not believe the TAKING of one life is worth the risk of many... sometimes... I am human.. i fail miserably... and there are some cases i can think of where i might not agree with myself :) PEACE :)