Hypothetical Situation Question - Morality

[Mr Pickles]

I could not kill the few to save the many. I am not able to kill anyone for any reason. Its not in me and that's how I would like to keep it. Killing someone for any reason is never just.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: panipoori
Some people took this hypothetical question way too literally, its a classic utilitarian question. Do the benefits outweigh the costs, saving the lives of 50 people over that of one. I would say yes.

But that's why classic utilitarianism is generally rejected as a moral philosophy by most intelligent people - it fails to recognize any baseline rights. To the hypothetical situation, I say I would NOT kill the person, because I may not, as a third party, take the life of an innocent (a martyr) to save other innocents, unless the martyr consented. Think about it like this - right now, hundreds of people are on waiting lists for vital donor organs, and many will die while still waiting, because the need far exceeds the supply. So what would you think of a doctor who regularly kidnapped and killed healthy people for their organs, because for every healthy (yet unwilling) donor, he could save the lives of at least 4 people who would otherwise be dead within a month? Justified? By pure utilitarian logic, sure, because 4>1, but would you really want to live in such a world, where the gov't could just show up at your door and say you've been selected to save 4 people, against your will?

 

[Mr Pickles]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: panipoori
Some people took this hypothetical question way too literally, its a classic utilitarian question. Do the benefits outweigh the costs, saving the lives of 50 people over that of one. I would say yes.

But that's why classic utilitarianism is generally rejected as a moral philosophy by most intelligent people - it fails to recognize any baseline rights. To the hypothetical situation, I say I would NOT kill the person, because I may not, as a third party, take the life of an innocent (a martyr) to save other innocents, unless the martyr consented. Think about it like this - right now, hundreds of people are on waiting lists for vital donor organs, and may will die while still waiting, because the need far exceeds the supply. So what would you think of a doctor who regularly kidnapped and killed healthy people for their organs, because for every healthy (yet unwilling) donor, he could save the lives of at least 4 people who would otherwise be dead within a month? Justified? By pure utilitarian logic, sure, because 4>1, but would you really want to live in such a world, where the gov't could just show up at your door and say you've been selected to save 4 people, against your will?

Wow, I'm going to use that. Well put.

 

[Mursilis]

Whoops.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: MrLee

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: panipoori
Some people took this hypothetical question way too literally, its a classic utilitarian question. Do the benefits outweigh the costs, saving the lives of 50 people over that of one. I would say yes.

But that's why classic utilitarianism is generally rejected as a moral philosophy by most intelligent people - it fails to recognize any baseline rights. To the hypothetical situation, I say I would NOT kill the person, because I may not, as a third party, take the life of an innocent (a martyr) to save other innocents, unless the martyr consented. Think about it like this - right now, hundreds of people are on waiting lists for vital donor organs, and may will die while still waiting, because the need far exceeds the supply. So what would you think of a doctor who regularly kidnapped and killed healthy people for their organs, because for every healthy (yet unwilling) donor, he could save the lives of at least 4 people who would otherwise be dead within a month? Justified? By pure utilitarian logic, sure, because 4>1, but would you really want to live in such a world, where the gov't could just show up at your door and say you've been selected to save 4 people, against your will?

Wow, I'm going to use that. Well put.

🙂 Thank you. Finally, that philosophy minor can be put to use! And mom and dad said I was wasting my time! :laugh:

 

[Codewiz]

Actually belief in God does play a role here......

If you believe in God then you can more easily justify letting 100 people die and not killing the one person. You believe there is an afterlife and people will be sorted out by God.

An Atheist believes there is no afterlife and it is worth the life of one person to save the lives of 100.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: MrLee
I could not kill the few to save the many. I am not able to kill anyone for any reason. Its not in me and that's how I would like to keep it. Killing someone for any reason is never just.

Make sure you tell your wife that you'd be unable to kill a guy who is attacking and raping her because it's against your moral principles. "Sorry honey, shooting him would be wrong."

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Actually belief in God does play a role here......

If you believe in God then you can more easily justify letting 100 people die and not killing the one person. You believe there is an afterlife and people will be sorted out by God.

An Atheist believes there is no afterlife and it is worth the life of one person to save the lives of 100.

LOL. By your logic, since an atheist judges all actions based on lack of belief in an afterlife, he wouldn't help any of the people since he could be 100% evil without fear of otherworldly punishment. But that's not how people make decisions, or all religious people would be paragons of virtue and never commit any sins, at all, ever. If you really believed god was watching you would you ever do anything even slightly wrong and risk eternal suffering in the bowels of perdition? Me either.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Codewiz


An Atheist believes there is no afterlife and it is worth the life of one person to save the lives of 100.

as an atheist myself i would somehow get to the front of the train and get outside it and enjoy my view as the train flys off the track

if i were Steve Buscemis character in Armageddon, i woudl have ridden that thing all the way in


woot front row seat to the end of the world

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Nope, we all gonna die. You don't bargain with madmen and terrorists period.

then you will have the blood of hundreds of people on your hands.

the life of one vs the life of hundreds...

I would not be the one to take their lives. Their blood would not be on my hands. The value of life can be subjective but, it can never be a numbers game.

Are you more worried about getting blood on your hands then whether hundreds of people live or die?

The end result is either 1 person dies or hundreds die. That is a huge difference, and who's fault it is is insignificant in comparison.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Ends don't justify the means. How many people are sugesting murdering innocent people is acceptable and then will go into a thread about torture and say it's never acceptable? 1 life vs 100? Is 99 lives the magic number for net gain that's acceptable. What if you had to kill 25 people to save 100? 99 for 100? Is that too much hard work to save 100 people? Instead of spending the effort to kill people you should be looking for a way to stop the whole thing. Atleast that way, whether you succeed or fail you're still not scum.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Actually belief in God does play a role here......

If you believe in God then you can more easily justify letting 100 people die and not killing the one person. You believe there is an afterlife and people will be sorted out by God.

An Atheist believes there is no afterlife and it is worth the life of one person to save the lives of 100.

Then kill them ALL and let God sort it out...



Am I a less "moral" person because the odds are, I'd let the trainfull of people die?
Not because I have some aversion to killing the passing stranger...he doesn't mean shit to me either.

I've aged past all the idealistic bullshit to the stage where unless there's something in it for me, I ain't gonna get involved.

If that meant that by letting the passer-by live, a terrorist would nuke Tokyo...then all I can say is that property prices there have been too high anyway...;') and it's time to Bring back Godzirra!

 

[KeithTalent]

I doubt I could bring myself to kill the innocent person so the 100 people would probably die. Sorry guys. 🙁

KT

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu
Ends don't justify the means. How many people are sugesting murdering innocent people is acceptable and then will go into a thread about torture and say it's never acceptable? 1 life vs 100? Is 99 lives the magic number for net gain that's acceptable. What if you had to kill 25 people to save 100? 99 for 100? Is that too much hard work to save 100 people? Instead of spending the effort to kill people you should be looking for a way to stop the whole thing. Atleast that way, whether you succeed or fail you're still not scum.

Good points, especially the one about torture.

 

[Mr Pickles]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: MrLee
I could not kill the few to save the many. I am not able to kill anyone for any reason. Its not in me and that's how I would like to keep it. Killing someone for any reason is never just.

Make sure you tell your wife that you'd be unable to kill a guy who is attacking and raping her because it's against your moral principles. "Sorry honey, shooting him would be wrong."

Do you think there are examples that I have not applied to this? I definately will tell her. In fact after dating a girl for a long time I've had that conversation with her with that exact same scenario. I would do everything in my power to stop a person from harming another person, but I cannot bring myself to intentionally kill them to get them to stop. I could not bring myself to intentionally kill for any reason, ever.

 

[Gunslinger08]

No, I would not kill one to potentially save many, based on the words of a madman.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Actually belief in God does play a role here......

If you believe in God then you can more easily justify letting 100 people die and not killing the one person. You believe there is an afterlife and people will be sorted out by God.

An Atheist believes there is no afterlife and it is worth the life of one person to save the lives of 100.

and of course, god could also judge you for not saving the lives of the 100 over the 1. it could go either way 😛

 

[ViviTheMage]

id close my eyes til I was lead to the mastermind fella, and woop him with my shovel.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
Nope, we all gonna die. You don't bargain with madmen and terrorists period.

then you will have the blood of hundreds of people on your hands.

the life of one vs the life of hundreds...

I would not be the one to take their lives. Their blood would not be on my hands. The value of life can be subjective but, it can never be a numbers game.

Are you more worried about getting blood on your hands then whether hundreds of people live or die?

The end result is either 1 person dies or hundreds die. That is a huge difference, and who's fault it is is insignificant in comparison.

This is an interesting point. In my belief system, it is not about blood on my hands (I've had plenty) it is about responsibility/accountability.

In the OP's original scenario, I am NOT the one responsible for the deaths of hundreds by refusing to kill the one.

What I get from your post is that pragmatism rules. In effect, any thing should be done to save the greatest number of individuals.

Aside from my own pragmatic viewpoint of never bargaining with madmen/terrorists/evil geniuses, I will not be forced into sharing the killer's responsibility.

I have no problem with being responsible for taking a life as long as it's my choice.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: MrLee

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: MrLee
I could not kill the few to save the many. I am not able to kill anyone for any reason. Its not in me and that's how I would like to keep it. Killing someone for any reason is never just.

Make sure you tell your wife that you'd be unable to kill a guy who is attacking and raping her because it's against your moral principles. "Sorry honey, shooting him would be wrong."

Do you think there are examples that I have not applied to this? I definately will tell her. In fact after dating a girl for a long time I've had that conversation with her with that exact same scenario. I would do everything in my power to stop a person from harming another person, but I cannot bring myself to intentionally kill them to get them to stop. I could not bring myself to intentionally kill for any reason, ever.

This is the part of the movie where the lurking genius psychotic tracks you down and proves you wrong. MWAHAHAHA!

 

[Mr Pickles]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: MrLee

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: MrLee
I could not kill the few to save the many. I am not able to kill anyone for any reason. Its not in me and that's how I would like to keep it. Killing someone for any reason is never just.

Make sure you tell your wife that you'd be unable to kill a guy who is attacking and raping her because it's against your moral principles. "Sorry honey, shooting him would be wrong."

Do you think there are examples that I have not applied to this? I definately will tell her. In fact after dating a girl for a long time I've had that conversation with her with that exact same scenario. I would do everything in my power to stop a person from harming another person, but I cannot bring myself to intentionally kill them to get them to stop. I could not bring myself to intentionally kill for any reason, ever.

This is the part of the movie where the lurking genius psychotic tracks you down and proves you wrong. MWAHAHAHA!

:laugh:

 

[Brainonska511]

I wouldn't kill the person because what's the point of valuing many lives if we don't value the individual life.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
I wouldn't kill the person because what's the point of valuing many lives if we don't value the individual life.

Yup, I believe that as well. It would not keep me from killing the perpetrator but, it would keep me from killing the one to save the hundred.

 

[Sqube]

Quite frankly, the guilt will probably kill you either way. If you don't kill the one, the blood isn't on your hands (assertions to the contrary notwithstanding), but what are the odds that your conscience will be so easily assuaged? I wonder how many people would be paralyzed by the sheer magnitude of the decision and its long-term ramifications, whether you kill the one or not.

Stop leaving the human element out of this and acting like it's a math problem. If it was just a math problem, there'd be nothing to discuss. The one dies.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Codewiz


An Atheist believes there is no afterlife and it is worth the life of one person to save the lives of 100.

as an atheist myself i would somehow get to the front of the train and get outside it and enjoy my view as the train flys off the track

if i were Steve Buscemis character in Armageddon, i woudl have ridden that thing all the way in


woot front row seat to the end of the world

As an atheist as well. And I believe most atheist value current life on this planet more because we believe it is our only time. Also most atheist follow the golden rule.

That doesn't mean atheists don't sacrifice themselves for the greater good. I went to Iraq and put myself in danger because I believed it was the RIGHT thing to do.

Does anyone deny that it would be easier for a religious person to justify letting 100 people die instead of sacrificing one person?

This question comes from a set of questions to show how human's deal with morality. There are many more along these lines.