Kill 1 to save 1,000?

[Deleted]

I'd kill 1000 to save 1 bug.

[Deleted]

I've killed a human before. So yes, yes i would

[Deleted]

This argument is very similar to the "ticking bomb scenario" that some have used to try to support torture. The basic argument is:

A terrorist has hidden a bomb that will explode soon. It will kill X number of people. Do you torture him to find it?

The next question is:

The terrorist is very tough. You cannot make him break by torturing him. He has a soft spot for his totally innocent wife and children, who have never done wrong. Do you torture them in front of him to find it?

The next question is:

The (unmarried,childless) terrorist is a pillar of his local community. His local community is full of innocent husbands / wives / children. Do you torture them in front of him to find it?

How do you know that killing the one person would save 1,000 people? In what situation would that happen? What would you feel like if you killed that person and the 1,000 people died anyway.

I would not kill the one person.

[achaeon]

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 does though, because we're human, it's relevant. I'd spare my close loved ones to let 1,000 strangers die. The reality is we live in worlds of self, so to pretend that's not true is silly.

[tilatequila]

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.

What if this decision was in someone elses hand, and you were one of those 1000.. how would you feel?

[achaeon]

What if this decision was in someone elses hand, and you were one of those 1000.. how would you feel?

That kind of brings us back to the thread topic not providing enough input to make a real decision. Trying to pretend that the identity of the '1' or the identity of the '1,000' is irrelevant makes the results of the poll irrelevant. The identity of either will impact how people decide.

[Deleted]

Kill 1 to save 1000. The idea that killing 1000 people would stop the 7 billion strong world population from being too high is ridiculous and 1 life is never worth more than 1000.

[Elim Garak]

I have a more interesting moral dilemma:

Would you club a cute baby seal with a spoon, slowly killing it, to save 1 human? Regardless of human quality. Let's say it's your favorite human on this planet.

[achaeon]

I have a more interesting moral dilemma:

Would you club a cute baby seal with a spoon, slowly killing it, to save 1 human? Regardless of human quality. Let's say it's your favorite human on this planet.

Hell I may do that just to say I clubbed a baby seal. How often do you get that opportunity?

[irongar]

What if this decision was in someone elses hand, and you were one of those 1000.. how would you feel?

How would you feel if you were the 1 person that would be killed?

This thread is inrelevant. If I had to make that dicision I would rather kill myself than picking one of those answers, as I have not the right to take anyone else their life.

Should added at least an option in the poll "I have no idea".

EDIT:
The one person I kill would be myself, for the sake of thousand human beings..

[Derpdederp]

Nah. Populations high enough. Let life go on it's merry way.

[achaeon]

Besides, most the people in this thread, gun in hand, muzzle to another human's head, wouldn't be capable of pulling the trigger, regardless of the outcome.

I wonder who everyone imagined when they thought about killing that '1'. I bet most didn't think about a cute 6 year old crying girl. Or holding a gun to her head.

Again, not enough inputs in the question to take into account the human psyche.

[Elim Garak]

Hell I may do that just to say I clubbed a baby seal. How often do you get that opportunity?

If you live near their habitat - it's pretty common, you also have an opportunity to kill some PETA members.

[Martinussen]

If, we think that the 1 person is valued 1, and the 1000 valued 1 each or 1000 total, i would, if i had no relation to the person or had nothing preventing me in any way, shape or form, kill him.

[McNeil]

To those who played Battlefield 3, you also had to shoot one of your own people or millions of innocent lives could fall

If your interested to see that scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBBGo...eature=related

Skip to 11:30 - 12:30

[Catta]

To those who played Battlefield 3, you also had to shoot one of your own people or millions of innocent lives could fall

If your interested to see that scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBBGo...eature=related

Skip to 11:30 - 12:30

and if you were Russian its prolly nice to be the good guy for a change...

[Purlina]

If you are not willing to be that 1 person who has to die, you have no right to kill someone else.

[Deleted]

The answer is simple. Wait until 1000 people answered this topic. Then let them die.

Then suicide yourself.

/thread.

oh snap I answered it. *sadface*

[Baz]

From an objective standpoint, I don't care if 1000 people die. But if I knew some of the 1000 better than I knew the 1 - or didnt know the 1 at all - then my decision obviously changes.

[xenaros]

If the 1 is a threat and killing him will result in people being saved, no doubt.
If the 1 is innocent, a psycho tells you to kill them or he will kill 1000 others, then logic battles conscience, but in the end I think I would do it.
If the 1 is someone I care about, let the 1000 die. I'd consider every alternative, stall the decision and pull my hair out, but I'd do it and try to live with the guilt.