Kill a Few, Save Many?

So I was watching NBC earlier, the show that was on was called Medium. The episode title was "A Necessary Evil." I don't normally watch this show. I've never even heard of it before, but it is easily becoming a favorite of mine.

The episode was mainly about a teenager named Brandon who hears voices from a spirit telling him about murders that will happen in the future and what to do to prevent them. He is convinced that whatever the spirit says will always come true. The thing is, Brandon is told by the spirit that to prevent the death of innocent people, the soon-to-be murderers must be killed. He is also told exactly what to do to successfully kill and leave no evidence. His method of killing is by convincing his victims to commit suicide ether by negotiation or/and at gunpoint. He believes that by killing these people, he is making the world a better place.

What do you think about what Brandon is doing? Is killing not yet guilty people okay? Is killing to save others alright?

I want to hear what you guys have to say about this. And I'm not going to tell what happens at the end of the episode... yet.


EDIT:
You can watch the full episode on Hulu.

Ending:

Spoiler

Brandon becomes confused while trying to kill Allison, another psychic, who is a threat to the spirit's plans, and who doesn't commit suicide when threatened. She tells him that what the spirit, or ghost, says isn't absolute like what it led him to believe. Allison tells Brandon who is to say that somebody wouldn't have stopped the soon-to-be killers, or who's to say that they wouldn't of have stopped themselves. So basically Brandon realizes that he forced those people to kill themselves for no reason at all. The ghost replies to this by saying, "Well we could hardly afford to wait and just let awful things happen." But why does killing them have to be the fate for those people?

 

I don't think it is right, even if you are absolutely 100% positive that the person will kill someone else, you shouldn't kill them, especially based on something like voices in your head. Instead you should find alternative ways of preventing the murder such as speaking to the potential victim or leaving an anonymous tip for the police.

Killing another person is never justifiable in my opinion.

 

No matter what the reason, murder can never be justified, even if you 100% sure. You could talk them out of doing the murder, but other than that go to the police. If you kill someone, yor just the same as the muderer.

Oh and P.S why would you commit suicide at gunpoint? that makes no sense, i'd rather be shot, at least there's a chance i could survive.​

 

I would say it's a last resort - if the guy is right there, in front of his victim, with the murder weapon, then it becomes justified - and legal. At any time before that, negotiation and diplomacy work best and won't get you life in prison.

 

i would say no, because most deaths can be prevented WITHOUT taking someone else's life. but in some situations, i'll have to say yes, because sometimes killing another person is the quickest and surest way to prevent another life from being lost.

 

This is so reminding me of Death Note in a way... >< No, it's not okay to just kill someone. I mean... maybe he should watch them... And if they do try to commit the murder, let him call the cops. It's not right, and maybe their lives could be turned around. maybe... The option of killing somebody is something that you have to think about last to solve a problem.

 

I'd probably kill a few people to save more, but only if there is absolutely no other alternative.

 

The boy was threatening them with slow and painful deaths by shooting them six times in different areas of the body ten minutes apart.

 

Hmm, I see a few people here are totally against killing to save other people.. but I ask you this, what if the person destined to die was a member of your family or one you loved? I sure as hell would kill someone if I was 100% sure they would kill someone dear to me :/

 

That's quite selfish if your only criterium is a tighter bond with the person you save.

 

Meh, human race is selfish.

Come on, you can hardly say you'd be as protective of a stranger as you would of your own family.

 

Well I'd say the saying "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush" applies.

Leave the guys to potentially kill and you're going for the two in the bush. Kill them or otherwise incapacitate them and you've got the one in hand.

 

Let's justify crime by saying that from now on. I mean, it's a valid argument in your logic, so why not? Should work, right?

Seriously, you just sound lazy enough to show no interest in trying to offset possible flaws though. Nobody likes such people, really.

There are many kinds of selfishness too. What you display is a primitive and superficial kind. You can just as easily gain satisfaction out of making yourself useful instead of being an emotional vampire who denies another's happiness to fulfill his own. ;)

What if my loved one is an old man while the stranger is a youngster with his whole life ahead of himself?
What if my loved one isn't loved by many other people while the stranger has a large family that desires him among the living?
What if my loved one is unhappy while the stranger is content with his life?

 

'Kay Ill rephrase- Human race is selfish when it comes to people we care about

That wouldnt make them strangers if you knew that much about them :/
The old man could have ten years left to live, the young boy could get hit by a car the following day, nobody knows. But I sure as hell know I would protect the people I love over strangers :/

I would kill to save those dear to me, regardless of the situation ~

 

What if the stranger is a stranger and you have no idea he's content with his life, has a large family, etc.?
What if the stranger himself would become a murderer?
They're countless scenarios that are irrevelant to the main question being asked here.



Back on topic:
I would try to find another way to stop them.
Tip the police, set a trap, warn the victim.
If all else fails, then I would probably kill him.

But another question
If I knew that killer would kill someone who I've never met, would I care?
Would I decide to be the vigilante to save people who I have no connection to?
Probably only if the murder would be close, like in the same town.

 

You only need one side's information and estimate the odds of the stranger living a "better" life than the person you know and like. It's not too hard to realise this either. I'm sure both of you could have known the answer to that question yourself. :)

I wouldn't necessarily choose to save a loved one over a stranger, there are of course situations that I will. I'm just saying that choosing your loved one without any regard for the situational context would be an example of letting my emotions get the best of yourself, which I consider beneath me.

 

It is not emotions, it is part of our nature. We have evolved to look after copies of our own genes which are much more likely to be in the bodies of family members than those who are not related to us. They are also more likely to be in the bodies of those who look similar to us, hence why race could also become a factor.

The age argument is also genetically based. A child has more opportunities in the future to pass on their genetic material than an old person (especially an older woman, they should technically be the last ones to be saved as they can no longer reproduce).

 

I wasn't just talking about family members. I meant to include friends and lovers and the like as well.
Also, one could argue all of our emotions could be retraced to more pristine instincts. But doing so is where I draw the line. I hope to be rational but to remain "humane". I try not to see emotions as complex instincts, much less as a chain reaction of molecules.

And much like other emotions I believe these can be repressed, put aside and resisted against.

On a side note, I question your argument of the older man and woman. There are no known cases in the animal kingdom of an instinct that seeks to preserve an entire species at once. Instincts are almost always located on the level of an individual.

 

Yes, but being the intelligent beings we are, we should not think like animals - only about our geneflow. We should think with the so-called "Human element". Besides, it rarely comes down to a choice of either-or.

All this is beside the point, anyways. The question is, if you KNOW, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that someone was going to kill someone else, would you kill him to stop him? In which case, my answer stands - until the final moment, where the killer is poised to kill, do everything short of killing him. Once the killer, however, is right in front of (behind, wherever) the victim, with his weapon, ready to kill within seconds, and you have the means, kill him. Before that exact moment, fight him, grab the weapon, talk, knock him out, whatever you can. Once the moment comes, then you act. It's the only reasonable course of action.