Poll: Kill 1 to save 1,000?

Page 1 of 16
1
2
3
11
... LastLast
  1. #1

    Kill 1 to save 1,000?

    Hello everyone,

    I'm bringing up an age-old question for debate here: Is it right to "Kill 1 to save 1,000"?

    Personally, as much as I want to say yes, I really can't. I'm no authority or deity - so who am I to play God?

    It sounds like it would be a no-brainer to kill the 1, but I just have to hope I'll never be put in a situation where I have to make such a call.

    /discuss

  2. #2
    Who is the one and who is the 1,000? People are not inherently equal.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Who is the one and who is the 1,000? People are not inherently equal.
    From a rational, objective standpoint, it shouldn't affect the decision whatsoever.

    That's where the human element comes into play, though. That's what makes the decision so hard.

  4. #4
    Deleted
    If it was 1 person i didn't know wich i needed to kill to save 1000 people i didn't know i wouldn't even think twice about it. If it was someone i knew well vs 1000 people i didn't know i would kick back and enjoy the massacre.

  5. #5
    Don't kill the 1 and let the 1000 die is my choice. The world is overpopulated as it is, seeing as you didn't give these people any relations to me specifically, I wouldn't care to see them go. Yeah, its sinister, don't care.

  6. #6
    Deleted
    Chose option two becuase, yes, you might find me sceptical and asshole-ish. But if we are to save this planet a bit more, it's a good idea to kill 999 extra people, prevents overpopulation a bit more.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Warwithin View Post
    From a rational, objective standpoint, it shouldn't affect the decision whatsoever.

    That's where the human element comes into play, though. That's what makes the decision so hard.
    It should and does affect the decision. Rationale does not come into play. You are asking a moral question but disalow moral reasoning


    Also this reminds me of the Nazi doctors of WW II. They did horrible horrible things to people but they did advanced medicine and we use their results today to save way more then they killed and tortured.

  8. #8
    Herald of the Titans Irisel's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Swimming in a fish bowl
    Posts
    2,789
    No one will know how you will react in this awful situation, including yourself, until it happens.

    Rule of Thumb: If the healer's HPS is higher than your DPS, you're doing it wrong.

  9. #9
    Deleted
    Talking about overpopulation is pretty silly as its not really an issue in western countries compared to India or Africa.

    If you dont belong into a religion that says "don't kill" and you can think about the situation logically you would certainly kill the 1 person. If you think about the "authority to kill" majority of us eats meat where killing is necessity.

  10. #10
    Might want to ask for an edit to say "Kill 1 innocent to save 1,000 innocents" because killing a man who is about to kill 1,000 innocent people is pretty much a no-brainer for most people.

    Assuming that, in most situations, probably. In the end, a dead person doesn't care how they died, they are just dead. To me, it wouldn't be killing 1 innocent person as much as it would be saving 1000 innocent people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Warwithin View Post
    From a rational, objective standpoint, it shouldn't affect the decision whatsoever.

    That's where the human element comes into play, though. That's what makes the decision so hard.
    Actually, that's not true. If the 1 was a brilliant young scientist and the 1000 were old and dying, it would greatly swing the favor over to the 1 because he is more likely to create good in the world. He may well have more time left to live as all of the combined as well.
    Last edited by v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk; 2011-12-05 at 10:37 AM.

  11. #11
    depends. if the 1 is a terminally ill old man, who is completely lost to alzheimers, and the 1000 is fresh, young and innocent newborn children, THEN ITS A NO-BRAINER.

    dont kill the 1
    Quote Originally Posted by Davinfelth
    I'm a cow that casts green nature balls and turns into a bear cat tree owl and you are complaining about topography?

  12. #12
    Deleted
    ---------- Post added 2011-12-05 at 10:38 AM ----------

    [/COLOR]
    Quote Originally Posted by kazih View Post
    Talking about overpopulation is pretty silly as its not really an issue in western countries compared to India or Africa.

    If you dont belong into a religion that says "don't kill" and you can think about the situation logically you would certainly kill the 1 person. If you think about the "authority to kill" majority of us eats meat where killing is necessity.
    Ironically, if the world lived by US consumption standards it could only support at most 3 billion people, but if the world lived like China or India it could support over 13 billion. So while the population in western countries isn't as dense as other parts of the world their population is still just as stressful on resources.
    Last edited by mmoca0dbd288a6; 2011-12-05 at 10:38 AM.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by shagra View Post
    depends. if the 1 is a terminally ill old man, who is completely lost to alzheimers, and the 1000 is fresh, young and innocent newborn children, THEN ITS A NO-BRAINER.

    dont kill the 1
    That was so not expecting as I was reading, but when I got to the end, I laughed. Heartily.

  14. #14
    If the one guy threatens my country, family, or my friends; I will kill him. Without even blinking.

  15. #15
    Deleted
    i'd kill a 1000 to save 1

  16. #16
    Deleted
    Depends... If i knew some of the 1000 people, I'd do it

  17. #17
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Elmot View Post
    If the one guy threatens my country, (...) I will kill him. Without even blinking.
    For your country? For a piece of land that was taken by ancestors?

    I don't get nationalism. Maybe when there's an alien attack I'll develop this 'eartlings unite!'-feeling, but... I don't care for my country one bit. It's a name and a flag, 5 km from here there's another country.

  18. #18
    Deleted
    It kind of depends.

    Is this one person responsible for the endangerment of the 1000 other people?
    Did he do something grievious like holding 1000 people captive, and threatening to blow them all up? In this case, definately yes.
    Did he make an error somehow, which caused 1000 people to be at risk, and is the only way to save them to kill the person? In this case, most likely no. Unless the error is so huge or unforgivable it really should never have occured. In that case, yes.
    Is there no link at all between the one person and the 1000, an entirely phylosophical arguement? Are all 1001 people "innocent" civilians? In that case, no. Sacrificing the few for the many may be the correct choice from a rational point of view, but it is not from a moral point of view.

  19. #19
    Scarab Lord Wries's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,127
    Quote Originally Posted by lighteraser View Post
    i'd kill a 1000 to save 1
    This is how you can sum up the plot of Prison Break

  20. #20
    Dreadlord Brettshock's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    The Cloud District
    Posts
    981
    Depends. If the person is obviously going to kill 1,000 people, there is no chance they won't, and they fully intend to see the task through, then yes. If you can't 100% justify that they will truly do it, then no.

    Seeing as you'll most likely hit a grey area, I'd most likely go with yes. As said before, I'm not sure if I could in the situation, but the most rational process would be to eliminate the threat.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •