Kill 1 to save 1,000?

[Stir]

I'm also in the 'depends on the person' park.
I would not sacrifice the people I love most just to save a thousand people I don't know.
I would sacrifice myself to save the thousand people I don't know, if this sacrifice wouldn't be too gruesome. Sepuko? Sorry; not going to happen.
Killing someone I don't know to save a thousand? Well; actively killing a human being isn't too easy. Absolutely not. It would seriously damage a part of myself. But I'd do it if that would save a thousand others.

Everything is relative. There's something called the Monkey Sphere; it describes the maximum amount of members of a given species that an individual, at any point in time, can honestly relate to as a fellow person. For humans, the average monkey-sphere size is 150 people. At any given time, the average human can identify with a maximum of 150 individuals. Anyone not in that number is outside of the monkey sphere, and we thus don't really, instinctively, see them as individuals. I know you are all individuals who read this, but that is rationally; not instinctively. You are all outside of my monkey sphere.
If the thousand people who are about to die are, at that point, outside of your monkey sphere, while the one person is inside it, you'll probably spare the one. However, if there are several people within that thousand who are within your monkey-sphere, you'll probably sacrifice the one, since there's more people within your monkey-sphere to save.

Behavioural biology is intriguing.

Did you know that sheep have a way larger possible monkey-sphere? They can remember 200 individual faces with ease, and their monkey-sphere might be as big as four-hundred individuals.

Another fun fact is that this hypothesis is actually answered in most pop-stories. Especially in the medieval fantasy genre, but also in mythology. An example of this is the war for Troy (Homerus). In order to save one person (Helena), the Greeks launched a full-out war on Troy.

[Ogretron]

Actually - in all these scenarios if you are choosing which to kill, then doing nothing would kill no-one and therefore be the correct choice.

e.g If pressing the yellow button kills 1 person and pressing the green button kills 1000 - which button would you press ? Answer : Neither

The fact is that all these scenarios involve the choice between you killing X and someone/something else killing Y.

e.g. Pressing the green button will kill 1 person, not pressing the green button will kill 1000

In this situation - someone/something else is responsible for the deaths if you do nothing, you would only be responsible for the 1 death if you act.

So don't get this wrong - this is a choice about you doing something wrong to right someone else's wrong (not your own).

That is where you are wrong. No matter what, your decision will affect the lives of someone else. In your first scenario if someone is sinister enough to give you that ultimatum and you try and be a smart-ass and choose neither, he isn't going to be happy and will probably do something worse. The example isn't just choosing to kill them for no reason, you have to decide one or the other.

Also, the main question doesn't mention if you are actually the one killing either the 1 person, or 1000. It's a moral question: is it OK if one person dies in order to save 1000. You could be giving out the order, just not save that one person because you know others will die (if he's contagious or if he's a murderer), or sacrifice yourself to let others free.

Nowhere does it state you have to do something wrong. You missed the point of the exercise.

[callidas]

For an extension, you can include the 1 in the 1000, now everyone that was unhappy killing the 1 can 'refactor' their descision into: A person dies, now choose: Do 0 more die or 999 more die.

Once you have solved that somewhat easier problem, you just need to convince yourself that the 1 in the 1 is worth the same as one of the 1000 and you are done.

However some people think that bad things will happen to them after they are dead if they kill someone, so will 'allow 999 to die' rather than 'kill 1' on the grounds that it will be better for them after they are dead. Strange isn't it :P

[Greeney]

Really? If there was 1 female and 1000 men. Who would you kill? The rational choice would be all the men, because only females can reproduce. They don't even need sex, she could just keep all the sperm from the 1000s of men.

What the ridiculous? How in your mind is that rational?
It's better to let 1000 men die than 1 woman because a) men won't have children b) she's going to have over a thousand children c) you're drinking and posting

Maybe if it was a few hundred pregnant women vs. a thousand men I'd agree with your logic, but your point is ridiculous.

[Deleted]

If there is no other way, then the 1 must die.
Or would you rather be the person behind the deaths of 1000? Last time I checked, 1000 is more than 1.

[Traejun]

Sorry 1, whomever you are...you gotta die because a 1000 other people gotta live. My B.

[Purlina]

If there is no other way, then the 1 must die.
Or would you rather be the person behind the deaths of 1000? Last time I checked, 1000 is more than 1.

Would you kill your baby for 1000 strangers to live?

[gherkin]

I would totally kill the 0.1% to save the 99.9%.

[Zhinkis]

What the ridiculous? How in your mind is that rational?
It's better to let 1000 men die than 1 woman because a) men won't have children b) she's going to have over a thousand children c) you're drinking and posting

Maybe if it was a few hundred pregnant women vs. a thousand men I'd agree with your logic, but your point is ridiculous.

What if there was 1002 people left alive in the world you a female and 1000 males.

[Traejun]

Would you kill your baby for 1000 strangers to live?

Nope. I would kill 1,000,000 strangers for my son. This type of question presupposes you don't know any of the people involved...so you make the decisions from a purely detached and hypothetical standpoint.

[Raunchy]

It depends.......... Does the 1 person have boobs?

[Purlina]

Nope. I would kill 1,000,000 strangers for my son. This type of question presupposes you don't know any of the people involved...so you make the decisions from a purely detached and hypothetical standpoint.

Well then it all boils down to a your view on murder.

Is murder justifiable when used in order to save lives? (Where the number of lives saved > lives lost)

So we could say: Would you murder 1 person in order to save 2 people?

The ratio of lives saved should not make a difference, as long as it is > 1

---------- Post added 2011-12-08 at 07:30 PM ----------

For example if you can kill 1 person to save 1000 people, what is the difference if you kill 1 person to save 2 people?

It may change the ratio of people murdered vs. people saved, but the logic behind your decision should not change.

[MAGAmobile]

If there's exactly 1002 people on the planet including myself, the 1 person who would die, and the other 1000 who would die if I don't pick that option I would choose kill 1 save 1000. Vague questions like these are kind of pointless as it is because it depends on the circumstances and other variable far too much to get an actual response. If you want to go by the would I be playing god role, does that mean that every murderer, every solider in battle, and every fighter plays the role of god by killing 1 person?

[TheyCallMeTarzan]

Reason says kill one, save a thousand.

It's easy to say though. Fortunately I'm not in a position where I have to make that call. I'm glad some people can.

[Skelington]

Sure, why not?
Commit murder, be a "hero," and cannibalism.

[Redmage]

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.

I disagree. It matters greatly who the one is and who the thousand are.

Under the right circumstances i would kill 1000 to save one. and vice versa.

It's situational.

[Sava]

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.

Mate, if a nutter high on drugs has a weapon in his arms and a grenade stuck to his mouth and he was just about to blow a concert, the decision is not hard at all.

This is what happens when you don't specify details on a situation.
Congrats on being ambiguous.

[dualstorm]

So many variables.. and it's impossible to predict the future impact of any of the 1001 people. Go with the your gut in the moment and live with your choice is suppose.

[lightofdawn]

depends on who the 1000 are and who the 1 is.

i.e. if the 1 is me, then its a definite maybe....and if the 1000 are terrorists then idc who i kill

or if the 1 is someone i love, and the 1000 are random ass people, then no

[The Ogdru Jahad]

To those who don't understand how serious of a question this is..watch 24...it's on netflix right now instant stream...it will really make you question your own morality in situations like that.