Would you kill one child to save the world?

[Orsorum]

<< I was looking at it more from the point of view that this disease was more spread out - similar to AIDS.

okay, but the question still assumes that the people will die no matter what. it's not fair if they live >>





I'll sleep on this one.... *sigh* darn 8:30 sections.

 

[gotsmack]

What if ALL were doomed and if you kill them all except one that one could be saved?

when then?




talk more later, sleep now.

 

[lawaris]

<< I'll et you know when the fate of the world hinges on one child's future, and I'm the only one with the power to make that decision.

I hate these ridiculously irrelevant hypothetical questions. >>



why ??

there are so many here

 

[gopunk]

I stated all are innocent.

yea i know you did, but mere innocence doesn't mean they're all equal. note, i do not advocate the killing of those who do not meet my standards... this is only if i HAD to make the decision.

and like i said, the line is between 1 and 6 billion, and that is all that is relevant in this situation.

 

[gopunk]

I'll sleep on this one.... *sigh* darn 8:30 sections.

heh, i got a 9:30 tomorrow

 

[d1abolic]

Sure, i'll let the kid leave so that h/she can die the next day from that disease. *rolls eyes*

 

[datalink7]

Anyway... I have to be off to do homework. This debate has kept me up instead of writing my paper. I have a class at 9:30 and so need to jump right on it and get it done. You kept me up gopunk, damn you .

One final thought. You said:



<< how selfish of you is it to put your own need to feel good about yourself (yes, that's what this is about), over the lives of billions >>



Don't kid yourself. Every willfull act by a human being in this world is perpetrated by selfishness and for a need to feel good about yourself.

But that is another debate

I just wish I were a bit more intelligent so I could have gotten my point across in this one better.

Nice debating with you.

Till later.

edit Oh, and as for that "line"... I have a very hard time finding it. That is the same reason I am against abortion. Because I can't find the line where the fetus all of a sudden becomes a baby.

 

[Orsorum]

<<

I'll sleep on this one.... *sigh* darn 8:30 sections.

heh, i got a 9:30 tomorrow >>



Grrr.... still, you get an extra hour or so of sleep... bah.

 

[Nefrodite]

who brought up aids? What does aids have t do with this. Aids isn't powerful enough to end the world at all. we're still around obviously. now if aids were very fast acting(say 1 month infectiious incubation(so people could unknowingly spread it from continent to content) and death after 7 days horrible suffering) and it was easily passed through just breathing the same air.. then you'd have something that could do some serious damage

well even then it doesn't seem serious enough for this question

i was thinking more on the terms of an evil sadistic god giving you this ultimatim(sp).

 

[Orsorum]

<< who brought up aids? What does aids have t do with this. Aids isn't powerful enough to end the world at all. we're still around obviously. now if aids were very fast acting(say 1 month infectiious incubation(so people could unknowingly spread it from continent to content) and death after 7 days horrible suffering) and it was easily passed through just breathing the same air.. then you'd have something that could do some serious damage

well even then it doesn't seem serious enough for this question

i was thinking more on the terms of an evil sadistic god giving you this ultimatim(sp). >>



ultimatum

I believe the AIDS mention was valid... if you don't think AIDS can reach pandemic proportions, look at what's happening in Africa... ask yourself, if AIDS were to suddently incubate for an even longer amount of time, do you not think it could conceivably reach a large number of people on the earth?

Something that killed in one week would burn itself out... similar to Ebola; that's why Ebola has never reached pandemic proportions - it kills its hosts before it can spread beyond a local populace.

*sigh* yes, I'm actually going to bed now.

 

[gopunk]

Anyway... I have to be off to do homework. This debate has kept me up instead of writing my paper. I have a class at 9:30 and so need to jump right on it and get it done. You kept me up gopunk, damn you .

this is all part of my plan to make you flunk out of school

Don't kid yourself. Every willfull act by a human being in this world is perpetrated by selfishness and for a need to feel good about yourself.

alright you caught me i was just trying to show him that his decision was just as selfish.

edit Oh, and as for that "line"... I have a very hard time finding it. That is the same reason I am against abortion. Because I can't find the line where the fetus all of a sudden becomes a baby.

yea, i don't think i can either. but there are situations when it is obvious that it is on one side of the line, and not the other. for example, say i were to buy a new laptop. it's hard to give a price limit. say i said it was 2000. what if i got a really good deal, but it was 2001? i might still buy it. so the line is blurry. but i can tell you without a doubt, that if the laptop was 10,000... no matter how good a deal it was, i would not buy it. yes, i always find ways to reduce humanity to inanimate objects

Nice debating with you.
Till later.

you too, g'night... or happy studying

 

[Nefrodite]

I believe the AIDS mention was valid... if you don't think AIDS can reach pandemic proportions, look at what's happening in Africa... ask yourself, if AIDS were to suddently incubate for an even longer amount of time, do you not think it could conceivably reach a large number of people on the earth?


hehe still no, because aids is entirely preventable. say the incubation period were increased to 1 year. more people would die b4 people caught on, but it wouldn't end the world at all. Not all nations are like africa.

Something that killed in one week would burn itself out... similar to Ebola; that's why Ebola has never reached pandemic proportions - it kills its hosts before it can spread beyond a local populace.


thats why i gave the super aids virus a long incubation period. to allow it to spread maybe it should be longer.. i dunno. as i said b4, it doesn't work anyways.

 

[Orsorum]

<< I believe the AIDS mention was valid... if you don't think AIDS can reach pandemic proportions, look at what's happening in Africa... ask yourself, if AIDS were to suddently incubate for an even longer amount of time, do you not think it could conceivably reach a large number of people on the earth?


hehe still no, because aids is entirely preventable. say the incubation period were increased to 1 year. more people would die b4 people caught on, but it wouldn't end the world at all. Not all nations are like africa.

Something that killed in one week would burn itself out... similar to Ebola; that's why Ebola has never reached pandemic proportions - it kills its hosts before it can spread beyond a local populace.


thats why i gave the super aids virus a long incubation period. to allow it to spread maybe it should be longer.. i dunno. as i said b4, it doesn't work anyways. >>



Super aids... sounds like a medicine brand... AIDS is preventable... what if it were to become more resistent to (I think it's oxygen or radiation, whatever kills it outside of the human body), and it were to become airborne? I believe there have been a few cases where it was transmitted by saliva, what's to stop it from becoming resistent enough merely to travel through vapor?

 

[Nefrodite]

Super aids... sounds like a medicine brand... AIDS is preventable... what if it were to become more resistent to (I think it's oxygen or radiation, whatever kills it outside of the human body), and it were to become airborne? I believe there have been a few cases where it was transmitted by saliva, what's to stop it from becoming resistent enough merely to travel through vapor?


whats what i said and it wasn't said b4 that i think

 

[Nemesis77]

Looking at practicaly point of view... If all people but that one kid died, it would for all intents and purposes mean that the kid would die soon afterwards. There would be no-one to look after him or to provide him with food. Of course, if he was a teenager he might be able to look after himself for some time, but he would die too sooner or later.

So the question is: "Do I kill this one child to save mankind, or do I let the child live and cause the death of all people, including this child?"

 

[gotsmack]

<< i was just trying to show him that his decision was just as selfish >>



I still do not see how NOT taking something that does not belong to you makes a person selfish.

I ask of you again

What if ALL were doomed and if you kill them all except one that one could be saved?

what then?

 

[gopunk]

<<

<< i was just trying to show him that his decision was just as selfish >>



I still do not see how NOT taking something that does not belong to you makes a person selfish. >>



you're basically letting 6 billion people die because you don't want to feel bad for killing a kid.

btw, any action is selfish, like b0mberman said

 

[pyonir]

<< Would you kill one child to save the world? >>


yep. would i take my own life to save the world? nope. yeah i'm selfish. go me.

 

[ThaGrandCow]

Yes I would.
If the whole world died then the child would be without supervision or caring. Who would feed it? Who would make sure it didnt get eaten by some wild animal. The child is dead either way, it just depends on if the whole world dies too.

 

[gotsmack]

you can't even open the door for an old lady without having someone saying that you are doing it for your own selfish pleasure these days.

you never answered the second part of my Q in the above post

I am maintaining my stance that I am letting these people die. I am not KILLING them.

 

[gopunk]

I ask of you again
What if ALL were doomed and if you kill them all except one that one could be saved?
what then?

eh i never saw this, you must have edited some message after i read it.

let me make sure i understand you correctly, basically nobody lives, or one person lives? i'd have to pick the one person option.

 

[Kev]

This is such a stupid thread, I can't believe it got to 4 pages. I'm not even going to comment on the question because if the answer isn't 100% obvious to you, then you deserve to be chained to the ground and pecked to death by ducks.

 

[Electric Amish]

Yes. I'd kill 100 or 1000.

amish

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I could and would do it. Of course after doing it I would be so guilt striken that I would probably kill myself.

 

[b0mbrman]

Yep. I'd kill the kid...wouldn't think twice about it