Your plane crashes

[Sojourner1]

Okay fine, you didn't actually kill them, but you had the opportunity to stop them from being killed and you didn't take it because you didn't want personal guilt.

Not about personal guilt but about person convictions and beliefs in regards to human life. I don't agree with the following statement:

"The said truth is that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." -- Jeremy Bentham

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Not about personal guilt but about person convictions and beliefs in regards to human life. I don't agree with the following statement:

"The said truth is that it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." -- Jeremy Bentham

So in your opinion 100 dead kids is better than 1?

 

[The Nihilist]

Okay fine, you didn't actually kill them, but you had the opportunity to stop them from being killed and you didn't take it because you didn't want personal guilt.

Agree with me or I'll beat my dog to death.

 

[Sojourner1]

So in your opinion 100 dead kids is better than 1?

Neither one is better. If the scenario were different then I would opt for saving more over saving less. For instance, if one of the children was going to do something that would instantly kill everyone then I would feel obligated to kill the one to save the rest. In this case, however, everyone involved is innocent. The only one threatening to do anything is the dictator. The best option would be to kill the dictator, the second best option would be to kill myself (sacrifice myself for the rest), but those options aren't available.

 

[b&wpac4]

Neither one is better. If the scenario were different then I would opt for saving more over saving less. For instance, if one of the children was going to do something that would instantly kill everyone then I would feel obligated to kill the one to save the rest. In this case, however, everyone involved is innocent. The only one threatening to do anything is the dictator. The best option would be to kill the dictator, the second best option would be to kill myself (sacrifice myself for the rest), but those options aren't available.

Given the correct scenario, killing one to save 99 is a good deal. I do agree that upon reflection, it really doesn't matter what you do here, so you might as well not kill any of them.

 

[white dove]

Just put the gun down and start speaking gibberish. He'll eventually get that you don't understand a word he said. He can't expect you to follow his directions if you don't speak the language.

 

[LightHorseman]

in a foreign country run by a ruthless dictator. He places you in a room with 100 children, a loaded gun, and no one else. He ensures that you cannot shoot anyone who isn't in that room. Then he commands you to kill one of the children, otherwise he'll kill all of them.

Should you obey?

There is a right answer, and it's not suicide.

Don't forget to show your work.

The correct answer is to use the weapon to defend the chidlren.

 

[Sojourner1]

The correct answer is to use the weapon to defend the chidlren.

I like that answer

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Agree with me or I'll beat my dog to death.

I already saw that post a couple pages back. But I know, simply by observing in personal experience, that you would not actually kill your dog. Also, there would be consequences for you, whereas the dictator is the highest power in his land, he would suffer no consequences for killing 100 children.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

The correct answer is to use the weapon to defend the chidlren.

You just got shot and so did 100 children. Regardless of how many guards (or whatever) you take out, the children and you are going to die because of your decision to try to be moral.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

You just got shot and so did 100 children. Regardless of how many guards (or whatever) you take out, the children and you are going to die because of your decision to try to be moral.

NO.

We and 100 children die because of a dictator's decision to be IMMORAL.

 

[white dove]

NO.

We and 100 children die because of a dictator's decision to be IMMORAL.

.



/thread

 

[yasic]

I know its late... but my personal answer:

Given all I know about the situation, and having read the thread I would shoot the kid.

Sure one might say that not killing the kid will make me not guilty, but for me the lives of 99 children far outweigh any feelings I may have.

I can understand peoples answer to not do anything in the hopes that none of the children will die, or that another option will develope, both of these seem like reasonable options (not ones I would put my money on but I do respect them). I do not, however, respect the decision people make of not killing a kid soley because it clears their concience (I respect that they are willing to admit it, but not the action) as it seems like selfishness taken way to far to an extreme.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Murder is murder, though, whether you kill one child or the dictator kills 100.

 

[yasic]

Murder is murder, though, whether you kill one child or the dictator kills 100.

Perhaps so,

and I would much rather murder someone and let 99 others live, then be indirectly responsible for 100 lives because I was afriad to be called a murderer.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Perhaps so,

and I would much rather murder someone and let 99 others live, then be indirectly responsible for 100 lives because I was afriad to be called a murderer.

But again, you cannot and should not be held responsible for the reprehensible actions of a dictator.

It's not about being afraid to be called a murderer. How would you choose which child to kill? What if all the children were under a certain age and could not understand that you were about to kill them? Could you actually live with yourself after killing a child? Especially if the dictator ends up laughing at you and still shooting the rest of them?

 

[yasic]

But again, you cannot and should not be held responsible for the reprehensible actions of a dictator.

It's not about being afraid to be called a murderer. How would you choose which child to kill? What if all the children were under a certain age and could not understand that you were about to kill them? Could you actually live with yourself after killing a child? Especially if the dictator ends up laughing at you and still shooting the rest of them?

Yeah, it may not be fair to you... but life is not fair. You are put in the situation you are in and now you should deal with it.

Could I live knowing that I killed a child in cold blood? I don't know, I never did and hopefully never will have to. But even if I knew I could NOT live with myself, I would still shoot the kid.

Why? Because I place the value of the lives of 99 kids above my own sanity. If I have to go insane and hate myself for the rest of my life, even for a chance that the 99 kids will live, then so be it.



And if the dictator kills them all anyways is a chance I will take. If there exists any chance that the dictator will keep his word, and I feel quite certain that the kids will die otherwise (which in this case I feel one can assume with quite a bit of certainty that they will die if you do not comply, at least I feel I can say so) then it is a risk worth taking.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

It's not about being afraid to be called a murderer.

It sure seems to be.

How would you choose which child to kill?

Randomly.

What if all the children were under a certain age and could not understand that you were about to kill them?

It would be depressing, but the answer still stands.

Could you actually live with yourself after killing a child?

Could you live with yourself after not making an attempt to save 99 children? Even if you could, is it worth you living with yourself for 100 children to die?

Especially if the dictator ends up laughing at you and still shooting the rest of them?

Then the end result is the same anyway, but at least you made an effort to save them, not sat back and let everyone die just so you can have a clear conscience.

 

[yguy]

Why? Because I place the value of the lives of 99 kids above my own sanity. If I have to go insane and hate myself for the rest of my life, even for a chance that the 99 kids will live, then so be it.

What makes you think the loss of your sanity and the death of the one child will be the end of the consequences of that murder?

And no, I'm not talking about eternal damnation.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

What makes you think the loss of your sanity and the death of the one child will be the end of the consequences of that murder?

And no, I'm not talking about eternal damnation.

I may be wrong, but I think I saw a hint of tin-foil-hatism in that last post.