Kill a Few, Save Many?

I understand, I was just talking about that aspect of it. It could also be seen (on the point of lovers) that the loss of a mate prevents reproduction and so would not be desirable genetically.

Umm what? How is that relevant to the example I gave? It is still an individual instinct. Genes that increase their numbers in the "gene pool" become more numerous (obviously) and so those that keep their relatives alive would become more numerous. Nothing to do with "good of the species/group".
On the point of reproductive age again no conscious choice by the genes. Those that saved elders over the young simply did not get passed on as much and therefore are not as numerous.

 

I think we misunderstood eachother. Never mind. It's not important.
I meant to say that there is probably no instinct that would make someone choose to save any old man over any old woman.

 

Okay.

A great number of lives (let's attribute a value of 1 million for the sake of the question) is in peril. You, for whatever reason and due to whatever circumstances, are the only person who can prevent this.

You can do it. You are perfectly capable of saving all those people. However, there is one thing stopping you: one misguided individual. You have no choice but to (see: NO CHOICE BUT TO, meaning you either have already tried everything else, or any other methods will not work for whateve reason) kill him/her to proceed. What do you do then?

 

Will I be shoved into prison for the murder? Do I know anyone being killed?

Also, let's make it interesting. The only way to kill the person is in cold blood, when they are helpless. Catching them with the finger on the button is not viable.

Oh, and sorry for the necro-bump. I'd like to see a bit more of this topic about the weight of lives. If it's preferable, I could make a new thread.

 

I don't suggest killing one to save many. Even at 100%, it shouldn't be right. Many variables come into play. Anything could go wrong here. But it isn't your call to kill him. That's what I believe.

 

Hmm let's see... A perfect world , requires perfect people... So in order to make a perfect world we have to despose of the people who are imperfect. I won't go *****ing around about morals. I believe we had enough about morals in this thread. The thing is, in my point of view , you can't just get rid of the evil in the world. It would mess up with the equilibria of the world. Besides, the urge to kill, or anyway to inflict pain resides in every one of us so if you wanted to do something like making the world better, you'd have to kill every person in the world, then shoot yourself.

 

As previously stated, there's too many variables in this situation. Is the person you're killing a murderer with a just cause such as only killing criminals? So would you kill him and save the criminals who will go on to kill others? That's just one variable.
Now Kill the guilty, save the innocent is a completely different matter.

 

Okay, let's have this hypothetical situation where there are no variables.

You have seen irrefutable proof that Person A is going to kill persons B to Z. Persons B to Z are innocent, hard-working contributors to society. Person A has so far done nothing against the law. He also has the appearance of a hard-working contributor. No one will believe you if you try to turn Person A in. You are unable to stop Person A when they have their finger on the button. You have a chance to kill him in cold blood. Do you do it? No other variables.

 

This is sort of Darren Shan's Beranabus in the Demonata series.

His theory is that to save millions, let die thousands.

This is sort of the same thing.

I still think the preservation of human life (however little) is still of significance.

 

No, it's not. He could tell the future victims to go into hiding, or something.

 

If the person I had to kill was actively trying to kill many innocents, then I would do it without hesitation, even if I was arrested. To not to do so would be the same as murdering all the innocents and sparing him.

If he was a vigilante actively trying to kill people who deserved it such as other murderers (of the innocent), thieves and rapists, then I would leave him be.

 

some peope such as dictators like Fidel Castro and Chaves and other dictotors do deserve to get killed and serial killers but im not so sure about this case

 

i do have to agree with the "kill one save a thousand" idea. im taking a philosophy class this semester in college and its teaching me lots of stuff like this. although lots of philosophers would disagree with me :D

 

Wow, this^ reminds me of a certain anime/manga that we all know and love...

 

Different. He's got a choice between saving a few thousand and dooming millions, or saving millions and leaving the thousand to their fate. He's actively trying to save people and he doesn't kill people who wouldn't die.

Now if it were "Kill a thousand yourself, or watch millions die" then it would be a moral dilemma.

 

Could you?

If its a choice of one for many then it comes down to if you could pull the trigger. could you become what you are preventing, even to save more lives? it sounds easy, but could you kill someone stone dead?

 

In the case of this 'medium', I'd ponder first that he's schizophrenic. xD

However, if I had such an ability or happened upon such information that a person was going to potentially kill others, I would try other routes first before thinking of murdering someone before he/she could commit a crime. A person could always change his/her mind and who knows.. maybe I could even talk the person out of it.

First thing I'd do is investigate the scenario and resolve whether I would be going to the authorities or not with this evidence of whatever I can dig up. If I can't do such a thing, I suppose I would try to be around the scene and stop the person, since I see ahead of time what he/she is going to do. I mean really... if you see the deaths etc and know the cause, what's to stop you from getting evidence or showing up at the scene to take the person down at the time? I'd be freaking Batman about it. Also, I wouldn't try to -kill- the person unless there was no choice. I'm not going to do pre-meditated murder. If it has to happen at the time, it does, but otherwise, I'd try to stop the person by just incapacitating him/her or disabling their bombs or whatever.

Now, if I'm at a scene where people are getting killed and could make the choice to kill that one or a few responsible versus letting them kill droves of others, I would still try to incapacitate, but if it's not probable, it's shoot to kill. Those who would take the lives of others like that are wrong to do so. i.e. spree killers, I'd take them down without a thought to save the lives of others. Again, I'd try to not 'kill' them but if it happens, I won't be that disheartened either as I did what I had to in order to let others live.

 

This should never be a choice. Killing some people to save others would be a bad choice, even if they were people you love. I'd use alternate methods like talking to the police or get some help from investigators.

 

If that fails though, you"ll have to live with the fact that you could have saved a helluva lot of people if you could put yourself above being a goody two-shoes in that critical moment.