Would you kill 1 person to save 1000?

[ev]

A hypothetical question about morality and where to draw the line, if someone had a bomb and was going to detonate it and kill 1000 people and the only way you could save those 1000 people would be to kill the person with the bomb, would you do it?

Elaborate on why you would or wouldn't.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I would hope that I would kill the one man without hesitation. It's an obvious choice.

[ev]

What I want to know is why it's an obvious choice.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What I want to know is why it's an obvious choice.

Because if you don't kill him, 1000 people will die?

[Killfacer]

Obviously i would

[Killfacer]

How about: would you kill a 40 year old pregnant woman to save 2 50 year old men?

[bcbm]

Nah, can't be arsed.

[F9]

I dont think that the yes or no is absolutely "fair" choice, this is said as of now, when the time comes lots could change opinion.On that basis i vote depends, because you never know what the situation would be.Of course the logic says fuck the one, if 1000 are going to live, but what about that one is a close person to you, what about if its just a child etc etc, what about if it is you!!And on the other side, some could say no, what if that one is a fascists, whouldnt you killed hitler?Wouldnt you killed someone who every night goes out and kills "immigrants", its unpossible to decide to kill yourselfs just to save all those you love?
I dont think that a yes or no answer is totally and absolutely something that would happen in such a situation.No one has been to such situations so those answers are actually reduntand.

Fuserg9:star:

[NecroCommie]

If the one person is just an average person threatening thousands of neo-nazis and other racist twats, then no. Ohterwise yes.

[scarletghoul]

Yeah it depends man. Cool question tho

[An archist]

Depends, who is the person going to bomb, and how well do I know this person?

[apathy maybe]

I would force that person to have sex with me or I would shoot them. Then I would shoot them anyway.

(That's a joke by the way, a bad one I know, but whatever.)

Oh, and I was thinking earlier today, what would an anti-abortion person say to this scenario:
You are in a country where abortion is completely illegal in all circumstances. A "mad" person has said that they will kill five people, unless five women wanting an abortion are permitted to have one (without any consequences for the women). This is the fourth time, the other three times the person has killed the five people they held hostage.
What would you suggest or recommend happen?

Let's see whether the bastards think that an embryo is more important than five people.

[Holden Caulfield]

I would kill 1000 for 1.

I'ld gladly kill 1000 posh student wankers for a mate, aquaintance, or kindly stranger.

[#FF0000]

If we're going off of the assumption that I don't know who will die in that group of 1000 and I don't know the one I'mma kill, then I'mma kill the one guy.

[ZeroNowhere]

It depends on whether the 1000s listen to false metal.

(Making bad jokes is my job.)

[Dr Mindbender]

I'd probably hesitate, depending on wether or not i could prove the merit of my good deed afterwards.

I'm too handsome to go to prison.

[Module]

Assuming all people involved were people who I didn't know then obviously I'd kill the one person, because otherwise I'd have indirectly killed 1000 people. :thumbdown:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This scenario is highly improbable, and thus, I refuse to answer.

:thumbup:

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Would you kill one kitten to save 1000 CEOs?

[Communist Theory]

I would kill a thousand kittens to kill one CEO.

[Black_Flag]

Depends, are the 1000 people politicians or cops? :D

On a serious note, we actually had a discussion about this through watching Batman: The Dark Knight, about the bit where tells the people of Gotham to kill that one lawyer or he blows up the hospital. Personally, i think although, it would be an extremely difficult choice which could stick with you forever, that the obvious choice is to kill the 1 person.

We discussed this a lot in A-level R.E (whilst learning about Utilitarianism and Situation Ethics), back before i became an atheist. I remember the scenario we used was something like "If you were a journalist covering a war and a group of terrorists/insurgents captured you, gave you a gun and stood you infront of a group of civilians and told you to shoot one or theyd all be shot, what would you do?".

I remember having a discussion with the R.E teacher where i proposed that it would be more just to kill the one, as if you didnt you are letting more die. However, from her Christian point of view and the whole sanctity of human life thing she said it would be a "sin" to kill the one and couldnt live with it on her conscience, but if the terrorists shot the group it obviously wasnt your fault . However, i felt it would be worse to let more die, as although it was no you who did the shooting, some of the responsibility for the death of the others could be placed on you.

Hope that made sense.

[Eva]

Depends on the scenario. Sometimes the real terrorist is not the perpetrator.

[mykittyhasaboner]

I would just kill them all. There, problem solved.

[Il Medico]

One or a thousand. Hard choice, for those against killing anyways. However, I believe that if you had to shoot one of a group of a thousand, you should shoot the one. Pick the oldest or most infirm, over a healthy person.

[Dimentio]

A hypothetical question about morality and where to draw the line, if someone had a bomb and was going to detonate it and kill 1000 people and the only way you could save those 1000 people would be to kill the person with the bomb, would you do it?

Elaborate on why you would or wouldn't.

That is obvious.

But if two persons have failing kidneys, and the only way to save them is to kill one healthy man with functioning kidneys, would you do so?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I would kill the one thousand and then stone the one to death with the one thousand's skulls.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Why not use that one bullet to kill the guy or gal who stuck you in this damn'ed situation?

[Angry Young Man]

A hypothetical question about morality and where to draw the line, if someone had a bomb and was going to detonate it and kill 1000 people and the only way you could save those 1000 people would be to kill the person with the bomb, would you do it?

Elaborate on why you would or wouldn't.
I voted yes thinking that it would be killing one innocent person to save 1000 innocent people. When you say that s/he will actually kill the 1000, then yes, bloody hell yes! Are you high? Jesus I haven't had this sub-par a moral dilemma since I was asked if I'd kill a tory for a life's supply of mini eggs.

[Angry Young Man]

I would kill 1000 for 1.

I'ld gladly kill 1000 posh student wankers for a mate, aquaintance, or kindly stranger.

I must show you round Clifton some time ;)

[Blackscare]

Here's another scenario:

A group of tourists/explorers/(whatever group won't incite anti-yuppie sentiment and thus fuck up people's answers) get lost in a cave by the coast. They eventually find a small opening through which they can escape. One member of the group who is obese rushes to the opening before every one else and gets stuck. He can't be pulled out.

You have a stick of dynamite in your hand. If you don't use it to blow him up and free the opening, the water in the cave will rise with the tide and drown everyone inside.

What would you do?

Another:

You're escaping a sinking ship in an overcrowded lifeboat. You're miles away from anything and it will take many days of rowing to get away. It becomes clear that there are too many people on the small lifeboat to last until rescue.

Do you:

A) refuse to throw anyone overboard, even though it makes the chance of everyone dying much more severe

B) draw lots on who is to be thrown out, even if it means the most fit (and thus able to paddle to safety) may be lost

C) throw the weakest and least likely to survive overboard (practical, but no explanation needed as to how awful it would also be)


Utilitarianism, noble solidarity, or fair arbitrariness?

[Glenn Beck]

Killing is wrong :crying:

[Nwoye]

so what if you killed the guy and the bomb was a dud?

[Blackscare]

so what if you killed the guy and the bomb was a dud?

Then he wouldn't be dead?

[commyrebel]

i think you should say would you kill a 1000 to save one

[gorillafuck]

I would kill 1 person to save 1000

[Holden Caulfield]

Killing is wrong :crying:
I would kill him for free and for irony

[swampfox]

Two words: greater good.

[Verix]

How about: would you kill a 40 year old pregnant woman to save 2 50 year old men?

In deciding rather a person sould live or die i think gender is irrelvant, thinking woman always sould be protected and mens lives are worth less is sexest victorian era bullshit, also the child was never born so it never had memorys or friends it dosnt know whats it missing the 2 50 year old men however have had 50 years each, so i would kill the pregnanat woman.

[Comrade B]

Said yes, but should have said depends, if it is a guy blowing up a room of business execs, I am down.
The person has already decided to kill 1000, and probably themselves with it, if they are killing themselves with the others, it will be no loss, if they are going to try to leave it and survive, they are cowards that will take others' lives without facing them. A bomb is a simple situation. The situation of pushing a person onto tracks to save others down the tracks is a harder one.

[ev]

Okay, so what if the 1000 people you would save by killing the 1 person were killers themselves and the individual you had to kill to save them was a good person?

What then? Would the value of those lives change as to make the 1 persons life more valuable than the 1000 people? Is it safe to establish that peoples actions determine the value of their lives?

edit: Lmfao, I just noticed someones contributed their handywork to the tags :lol:

[ls]

Gosh we all sound like a more homicidal version of The Proclaimers (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Proclaimers) (the most dangerous drunken bastads in the small world known as Fife).

[Module]

Okay, so what if the 1000 people you would save by killing the 1 person were killers themselves and the individual you had to kill to save them was a good person?

What then? Would the value of those lives change as to make the 1 persons life more valuable than the 1000 people? Is it safe to establish that peoples actions determine the value of their lives?Well only individuals can judge the value of people's lives, so sure we can say that actions are something which effects people's 'value'.
I think it would depend on the reason why the killers killed in the first place. If they did it because they were psycho maniacs with a blood lust then yeah obviously I wouldn't kill the good person. Otherwise I'd still probably save the 1000.

[apathy maybe]

What if you had to have sex with the pope? What then? Would you let the pope kill those 1000 people rather then have sex with him?

[Jazzratt]

I had this discussion last night, sort of. It ended with "would you kill 100 children [who are proven to have never commited any crime] to save 10,000 adults [proven murderers]". I still know what I'd do with that one.

[ZeroNowhere]

Would you kill one kitten to save 1000 CEOs?Yes.


I had this discussion last night, sort of. It ended with "would you kill 100 children [who are proven to have never commited any crime] to save 10,000 adults [proven murderers]"
Yes.

[-marx-]

Would you kill one kitten to save 1000 CEOs?Never, fuck the CEO's, I'll take the kitten!
(seriously)

:)

[Dr Mindbender]

another hypothetical question.

You are on a desert island with a baby, and the last living elephant.

Suddenly, the elephant becomes agitated and charges at the baby.

In front of you is a loaded rifle, capable of stopping the elephant dead.

What do you do?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Shoot the baby.

[Dr Mindbender]

Shoot the baby.

:lol:

[Comrade Anarchist]

i say yes but hopefully i wont have to make that choice.

[Angry Young Man]

Never, fuck the CEO's, I'll take the kitten!
(seriously)

:)
Would you kill 1000 CEOs to save 1 kitten?

I think you already know my answer.

[Angry Young Man]

http://imeleon.com/photo/40/sleeping_kitten.jpg

or
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/victoriaderbyshire/big_SirAlanSugar.jpg

[Bright Banana Beard]

Would you kill 1000 CEOs to save 1 kitten?

I think you already know my answer.

No, so I can get from rag to rich.

[Leaf]

another hypothetical question.

You are on a desert island with a baby, and the last living elephant.

Suddenly, the elephant becomes agitated and charges at the baby.

In front of you is a loaded rifle, capable of stopping the elephant dead.

What do you do?

Shoot the elephant. It'll die eventually and it's the last one and therefore cannot reproduce. Why would you keep it for novelty purposes?

And of course I would kill one person to save a 1000.
If I didn't I would be killing 1000 people to save one which makes no sense unless I know any of them.

[deLarge]

I had this discussion last night, sort of. It ended with "would you kill 100 children [who are proven to have never commited any crime] to save 10,000 adults [proven murderers]". I still know what I'd do with that one.

That's really the only spin on it that makes me have a hard time deciding. I would say no, on the basis that those 10,000 forfeited their rights by murdering.

[JohnnyC]

I think I could only kill persons I extremely dislike or don't know.But for someone I care, I would be willing to sacrifice 1000 unknown people, unless they are of some greater importance to humanity.

[Dr Mindbender]

Shoot the elephant. It'll die eventually and it's the last one and therefore cannot reproduce. Why would you keep it for novelty purposes?

.

What if the elephant was pregnant?

[Angry Young Man]

Then the jumbo would be the last elephant that would die sometime.

[apathy maybe]

another hypothetical question.

You are on a desert island with a baby, and the last living elephant.

Suddenly, the elephant becomes agitated and charges at the baby.

In front of you is a loaded rifle, capable of stopping the elephant dead.

What do you do?

I would shoot myself, because obviously someone has it in for me to put me in that situation. And rather than give them the enjoyment of torturing me more, I'll deprive them off any further pleasure they could get from my pain.

Fuck 'em.

[Nwoye]

would you kill 1 person to save 2 people?

[ev]

would you kill 1 person to save 2 people?

Or fundamentally, would you kill 1 person to save another?

And if so, why?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

This is a tough choice. Should you choose the best "action" or the best "consequence." I think it's a combination of the two. If I knew people involved, I don't know what I'd choose. I haven't made up my mind if action and inaction have moral relevance.

I probably would do nothing in this case because you shouldn't negotiate with terrorists. If we are going based on "ideals," anyone who gives into the demands of a terrorist is making terrorism a viable tactic. If we're being realistic, we still have to account for that. We also have to account for whether I should be obligated to kill someone, et cetera.

The difference between active and passive killing is very ingrained in our culture. I'm not sure how relevant the distinctions is aside from an active action requires exerting energy, which would have a somewhat negative loss.

I think there is a basic set of individual rights you have to necessarily respect unless your rights are threatened. This reminds me of the batman scene with the two boats, honestly.

If it is absolutely guaranteed that this will happen, such as the examples that don't involve a terrorist but rather a trolley (trolley problems), I'm not sure my view. In that case, it's probably an arbitrary distinction to say you killing one person to save 1000. You aren't. You're exerting some energy to kill. That's about it. Social conventions would make this worse, though.

There is some sort of "risk percentage" where it's no longer acceptable. What that percentage is, I don't know. Organ donation that kills random people would save lives. However, given the odds of both, you'd probably be taking a 70% chance on the life of someone else for your own, and there is a 30% chance of the opposite. There you've got to pick one, I suppose. However, this "seems" worrying. It's a tough call.

I'd like to think passive killing is not as bad as active killing. I don't have a reason for this view, though.

[Verix]

ok lets say this you have one boat filled with nazis (older nazis too, not just young punks), and another boat filled with the the every corporate employ (no workers only the rich pigs) of wal-mart each has a bomb on it you must detonate one if you dont in 3 min nethier will go off

[Dust Bunnies]

I vote depends since life and moral situations are not black and white.

[Communist Theory]

I would shoot a thousand Commies to save one CEO!!!
:lol:

[Black Sheep]

selfish bastards.The only reason you would hesitate to kill the 1 man is that you either you are too scared of punishment by the institution, or that you dont want the 'burden' of killing one man, regardless of the 1K lives you save.

[Angry Young Man]

I would shoot a thousand Commies to save one CEO!!!
:lol:

I would do the inverse: kill 1000 CEOs to save one communist. Particularly if that one communist was HC

[TheFutureOfThePublic]

I will say yes but it depends on what side you are with.If your with the bad guys and kill one good guy to save 1000 bad guys then its wrong,if you kill one bad guy to save 1000 good guys then it is right (good guys and bad guys just a random example)

[Manifesto]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one. Had to say it.

[Sarah Palin]

I'd cave under the pressure and kill myself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

ok lets say this you have one boat filled with nazis (older nazis too, not just young punks), and another boat filled with the the every corporate employ (no workers only the rich pigs) of wal-mart each has a bomb on it you must detonate one if you dont in 3 min nethier will go off

That depends. If they were guilty of the crimes that CEOs and Nazis are typically guilty of, and apprehending and/or executing them was my responsibility, I'd vapourise the Nazis in a heartbeat and as soon as possible arrange some kind of pursuit for the cappies. In any other situation I'd have insufficient data to make a decision.

[Intifadah]

I'd kill ten thousand people to save a thousand people, thats just how nice I am.

[Revy]

I'm just wondering, would all of you gladly allow yourselves to be killed if you were the "1"?

Would you kill 100,000 to save 10 million?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm just wondering, would all of you gladly allow yourselves to be killed if you were the "1"?

Would you kill 100,000 to save 10 million?

Allow myself to be killed for others? Probably not.

Would I enter in a lottery that increases me odds of living but allows someone to kill me if I lose the draw? Probably.

Can we say this lottery applies pre-society and I can go kill a random person for organs right now? I don't think it's that simple.

Tough decisions!

[RedRise]

Couldn't possibly kill a kitten!
- unless it was the sort of kitten that leaves 4 10cm scratches up your arm. :blink:

Assuming that the people involved in the 1 to 1000 scenario are just ordinary people, I would kill the 1. If the 1 person was trying to kill 1000 bad guys/terrorists/neo-nazis or something like that, i'd take a year to decide, and the guy probably would have detonated the bloody bomb by then.:rolleyes:
But think about this: If you are in the right place at the right time to stop the 1 guy detonating the bomb, wouldn't that put you in the wrong place at the wrong time if you yet the 1 guy detonate the bomb? (i.e. you'd get blown up with the other 1000:blink:)

[Revy]

All I'm saying is that you all are putting yourselves in the position of the one who would kill the 1 to save the 1000. But you have not considered what it would be like to be the 1 person that gets killed to save 1000.

People have qualified it with all kinds of information - this shows that there are different scenarios which would have different decisions involved.

But suppose you have 1000 faceless people who you know nothing about, and 1 faceless person who you know nothing about. 1000 people die every 10 minutes all over the world. But if you kill that 1 person, for 10 minutes nobody will die. Do you sound so noble now, killing that person?

[BOZG]

I'd just kill the 1000 and the 1 person. That way you'd have no philosophical questions to deal with. No man, no problem!

[Sarah Palin]

Would you kill 10 people to save 11? What about 10 people to save 9....
These are important questions.