Killing to Save More?

[Skillet]

It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people?



Should we be justified in disregarding the rights of an innocent minority in favor of the greater good of the society? Or should we forsake the lives of more innocent people just because of that one life?



Understand? Good. Debate.



When someone comments, I'll respond back =]

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

I dont see how I could ever be put in that situation.

 

[Skillet]

Just try to picture it. Here's an example: You and 10 friends are on a stranded island for a week. You know there will be a rescue ship in a few days, but if you don't eat, you will die. Is it right to kill one to save everyone else. Or is it right to let everyone die. Please don't point out the obvious what ifs in that, as this is just an example. What do you think?

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

Just try to picture it. Here's an example: You and 10 friends are on a stranded island for a week. You know there will be a rescue ship in a few days, but if you don't eat, you will die. Is it right to kill one to save everyone else. Or is it right to let everyone die. Please don't point out the obvious what ifs in that, as this is just an example. What do you think?

I would cut off my own foot and cook it up for everyone to share.

 

[Bluezone777]

Actually you could go a week without eating. You sure as hell won't be all that healthy but you will survive. I doubt anyone would be in a situation where there is absolutely no source of food at all. It's all about being creative and using what you have to survive.



I am pretty sure cutting your own foot off would eventually kill you due to the loss of blood.

 

[Nebulous's iconNebulous]

Actually you could go a week without eating. You sure as hell won't be all that healthy but you will survive. I doubt anyone would be in a situation where there is absolutely no source of food at all. It's all about being creative and using what you have to survive.



I am pretty sure cutting your own foot off would eventually kill you due to the loss of blood.

I'd burn the end of my foot so the stump hardens.

 

[Bluezone777]

What would you use to start a fire though? A deserted tropical island isn't going to have things like lighters and stuff.

Also who gets deserted on a tropical island and is fully aware of how long they will be there till rescue comes? Isn't that something that you don't know about till it happens? XD

 

[Skillet]

What would you use to start a fire though? A deserted tropical island isn't going to have things like lighters and stuff.

Also who gets deserted on a tropical island and is fully aware of how long they will be there till rescue comes? Isn't that something that you don't know about till it happens? XD

So many what if's..

 

[Kaczynski]

A tropical island should have fruit, right? Actually never mind food, water would keep you living longer. You could probably survive without the food. But water? No.



In that situation, I think that there'd be ways to get around it without killing someone. But say you had to sacrifice someone, well it'd be okay if the person was all martyr-like and masochistic. Willing to die for everyone else. So that'd be morally permissible...even Jesus did it. But if they all ganged on this one guy and killed him, then that's not. May as well all die.



2012 sort of talks about this too. Like, if you do this, you'll live, but if you live, you've also killed all these people.

 

[Skillet]

A tropical island should have fruit, right? Actually never mind food, water would keep you living longer. You could probably survive without the food. But water? No.



In that situation, I think that there'd be ways to get around it without killing someone. But say you had to sacrifice someone, well it'd be okay if the person was all martyr-like and masochistic. Willing to die for everyone else. So that'd be morally permissible...even Jesus did it. But if they all ganged on this one guy and killed him, then that's not. May as well all die.



2012 sort of talks about this too. Like, if you do this, you'll live, but if you live, you've also killed all these people.

Let's talk in the theoretical situation..



Would you believe if one person would die, would it be worth it to save ten?

 

[Kaczynski]

Yes. Unless that one person is in some way better than all ten combined. Ten lives, in the end, is a greater number than one. But that one person dies and that person is alright - could the rest of them live with it? But as Nebulous said, I can't really think of any situation like that either. Unless someone had one person with a gun to his victim's head, with ten other hostages inside a house, and the coppers couldn't negotiate successfully and were somehow forced to kill the victim along with the man with the gun. Maybe.

 

[Kasynlie]

It depends on the situation. I mean I would shoot and kill a serial killer on the loose.

 

[Skillet]

This is all theoretical situations

But what makes that one life less valuable than the other ten? Does a completely innocent person still deserve to die for other people?

 

[Kasynlie]

If that one person was willing and understood completely what they were doing, then I guess it's OK.

 

[Skillet]

What if they weren't.. But killing them could save ten other people in a room. Say such situation arises and there was NO ALTERNATIVE. Either you kill this innocent person, and 10 live.. Or you spare the person their life, and kill the other ten.



Who are we to play God, and say those ten people are more valuable than that one man. I never said anything about the other ten people either. Is it possible they are not good people?

 

[Tales]

Hey Skillet, you just helped me get over a writer's block for a piece of fiction... thanks to this topic..



Basically Killing to save more can be also apply to a situation when Earth gets too many humans.

This is the dilenma that puzzles environmentalists over the issue of population control... They cannot kill innocent people but if these people pillage the environment.



Well done! This is what I was looking for.

 

[Whatif]

Skillet, it just can't be sorry.

I'm open minded but to put it to you this way:

One who sacrifices the innocent for the lives of 10 others is no longer innocent but a hero. Heroes aren't innocent.



Without getting to confusing there is no debate here.



1<10

So technically speaking, yes.

 

[Tales]

How about One Planet > 3 Billion people?

 

[Whatif]

Nah.

Not that

Cause then innocence is of no matter

 

[Skillet]

Skillet, it just can't be sorry.

I'm open minded but to put it to you this way:

One who sacrifices the innocent for the lives of 10 others is no longer innocent but a hero. Heroes aren't innocent.



Without getting to confusing there is no debate here.



1<10

So technically speaking, yes.

Where there's a will, there's a way, and putting aside what I may actually think.. I want to disprove your whole last post.



The value of human life is immeasurable. Therefore, to say that we are more productive in any way by saving the greater amount is neither logical, nor morally acceptable. Let's put this is mathematical perspective, if you want to count numbers. How do you measure and compare the quantity of of x verses the quantity of y + z if you don't know the values of x, y, or z?



Another perspective.. Quantitatively..



Would you kill one 5-year old to save the lives of 5-90 year olds?

Or what about one medical doctor versus 5 crackpots?



Is their value of life the same..





YOU CAN NOT COMPARE ONE LIFE TO ANOTHER, IF YOU DO NOT KNOW THE VALUE OF EACH'S LIFE.





And you thought there was no debate. I think I just won.