Kill 1 to save 1,000?

[Raelbo]

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.

The problem is that everyone in China, India and Africa want to live at US consumption standards. If they ever achieve those objectives, the world will not be able to sustain it.

2 things are therefore necessary:

• The US needs to control how much it consumes per person.
• China, India and Africa need to control their population growth.

China is at least addressing their population issues, but for the rest it is a case of epically racing towards disaster...

[Elim Garak]

Depends...
I wouldn't kill 1 scientist for even 1000000000 rednecks.

[Quincey]

/threadhijack

If you could travel in time and you meet a young painter in Paris, named Adolf Hitler. With all you know, would you kill him? And possibly end up in old-time-jail?

No. The world was going to end up in war one way or another and that particular war sped up the creation of the atom bomb - a weapon that has maintained *relative* world peace for 60 years.

Plus ya know, I wouldn't go to paris again ever, what a shit hole.

[Deleted]

Maybe u need to read it says KILL 1 guy and save 1000 or let him live and he kills a 1000 people and who is that 1 guy and who are all those other 1000 people maybe their all murderes would u let them live then



there needs to be a third option u dont care

[Deleted]

Neither, I would do it like Sam and Dean in supernatural, find a way to save them all

[OISAC]

what if the 1 person is yourself?

[Korgoth]

/threadhijack

If you could travel in time and you meet a young painter in Paris, named Adolf Hitler. With all you know, would you kill him? And possibly end up in old-time-jail?

Butterfly effect. So No. You wouldnt have been born, and the world ends in 1968 in a triple nuclear war between the US, Russia, and Germany.

[h4rr0d]

Very interesting lecture on discussed theme:

[La]

I would say kill 1 to save 1000, but then again... if I was the 1, I`d say no. Funny how that works, isn`t it? The real question is would that 1 person give their life for 1000 other people.

no life is worth more than another, but are a 1000 lives worth more than 1? interesting.

[Deleted]

Killing someone is never a good idea. NEVER!

[Deleted]

I'd let 1000 die (not kill them myself) if it'd save young children with bright futures. That is, 1000 people that are going to die very soon like in 2 weeks or so, like old people and maybe african people that suffer from aids, to young children that has the opportunity to get their life back and contribute to the future.

While this may seem harsh, we have to take into consideration that the youngsters are our future, and that the world suffer from over-population.

[Last Starfighter]

Depends...
I wouldn't kill 1 scientist for even 1000000000 rednecks.

I would kill 1000000000 scientists for one redneck though.

[Deleted]

I'd kill a guy to even save one friend.

[GISP]

The political correct anwser is no, you shoudnt kill anyone, and everyone would say that face2face. But as shown by the poll, when asked anom 72.00% is saying yes.
Experiments have shown that aprox 4 of 5 would act upon it and actualy kill the 1 to save the 5 if put in the situation whit no other option.

[exogenesis1203]

I'd absolutely kill one to save a thousand, and I don't understand the deontological thinking that leads to any other decision. There probably is a point where my own guilt and trauma would come into play, but I'm not certain that it would offset even one additional life; which is to say, if you asked me to kill one person in order to save two people, I'd almost certainly do that too. I just don't value my own unhappiness with being a murderer over the life of even one person, and certainly not over the lives of 999.

Now, of course, I'm speaking in the hypothetical as regards my teleological morality. In practice, if you asked me to say, kill a family member, less practical aspects would come into play. That's not to say I wouldn't do it, only that I'm not asserting that I'm incapable of making irrational decisions for personal reasons. I like to think I wouldn't, but I've got insufficient data to make a firm case either way.

Yeah, that idea bugs the hell out of me too.
I mean, well let's just assume that it's one mass murderer that is gonna kill 1000 innocent people , not some either complex scenario that is gonna affect you decision.
Somehow it just seems to me that the people with the denotological thinking are so self centered, worried about the blood on their hands, worried about their own moral ethics and such kind of stuff they are not willing to sacrifices for 1000 lives. Heck, maybe killing that guy is the wrong decision and one might be traumatize and thrown inside a mental hospital, but that's still 1 dead, 1 insane vs 1000 lives.

[Deleted]

Depends on who the one is who has to die, im not gonna kill someone i know for 1000 strangers, let em have it.

[Doriath]

Personal opinion about it....Its all based on who you lose,who you save and whats on the line.Example...would you kill a loved one to save a thousands?Just depends on the situation.

[Deleted]

Survival of the fittest. Whatever happens it meant to.

[Aristeia]

Then after you kill that one person you are informed that you didn't actually save anyone by killing them.

Survival of the fittest. Whatever happens it meant to.

That is a butchery of the meaning of that phrase.

[Deleted]

Why isn't there an option to kill both 1 and 1000?