Follow us on twitter

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.



Serious Discussions  »   Would you kill someone to save others?

Bottom of Page

51 to 59 of 59

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. >
    • CommentAuthorKamilKJHF
    • CommentTimeOct 16th 2009
     
    I think this is a great discussion point, as the more you think about it the more you realise there is no solution that is satisfactory.

    By doing nothing you condemn 10 people to their deaths. For those that think this is a viable option I ask you this - should the world have done nothing about Hitler? Doing nothing is not a form of absolution. If you are in a position to act to save lives and you do nothing, you are complicit in those lives being lost by your inaction.

    However, by doing something that saves 10 lives at a cost of one life, you are making a very bold statement that the life of any individual is worth less than the life of a collection of individuals. By this logic yes, the doctor would be right to kill one healthy person to harvest organs and save ten lives.

    The problem of course is that hypothetical situations such as these lack the one thing that is key to any decision on life or death - context. Context is key in making these decisions, but it is also context that brings in values, morals etc. which is where the waters become muddier than a mud sandwich.

    For example, if the original situation were a real-life example and you could switch the tracks to choose killing one or ten, you would switch the tracks. The context here is that this is a tragic accident and your actions will result in death either way.

    Again in real life the doctor situation is totally different - you have organ donations all the time, and people dying of organ failure generally have plenty of warning and other options such as life support to increase the chances of finding a suitable donor without resorting to murder of healthy individuals.

    Consider the reverse - there are situations where killing ten people would be preferrable to killing one, such as if the runaway rail car was in a terrorist camp that you were escaping from and all 11 people are trying to kill you. In this context, you would kill ten rather than one.

    While I do enjoy discussions such as these, it is very hard to apply the decisions of a person in one situation to another where the context is totally different, so for me anyone arguing that this is a transferrable decision or that it reveals anything of note about an individual is pretty much wrong. I don't believe for a moment that anyone would honestly kill ten innocent people over one innocent person if they had a choice
    • CommentAuthorkurdboy
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2009 edited
     

     

    I think this is a great discussion point, as the more you think about it the more you realise there is no solution that is satisfactory.

    By doing nothing you condemn 10 people to their deaths. For those that think this is a viable option I ask you this - should the world have done nothing about Hitler? Doing nothing is not a form of absolution. If you are in a position to act to save lives and you do nothing, you are complicit in those lives being lost by your inaction.

    However, by doing something that saves 10 lives at a cost of one life, you are making a very bold statement that the life of any individual is worth less than the life of a collection of individuals. By this logic yes, the doctor would be right to kill one healthy person to harvest organs and save ten lives.

    The problem of course is that hypothetical situations such as these lack the one thing that is key to any decision on life or death - context. Context is key in making these decisions, but it is also context that brings in values, morals etc. which is where the waters become muddier than a mud sandwich.

    For example, if the original situation were a real-life example and you could switch the tracks to choose killing one or ten, you would switch the tracks. The context here is that this is a tragic accident and your actions will result in death either way.

    Again in real life the doctor situation is totally different - you have organ donations all the time, and people dying of organ failure generally have plenty of warning and other options such as life support to increase the chances of finding a suitable donor without resorting to murder of healthy individuals.

    Consider the reverse - there are situations where killing ten people would be preferrable to killing one, such as if the runaway rail car was in a terrorist camp that you were escaping from and all 11 people are trying to kill you. In this context, you would kill ten rather than one.

    While I do enjoy discussions such as these, it is very hard to apply the decisions of a person in one situation to another where the context is totally different, so for me anyone arguing that this is a transferrable decision or that it reveals anything of note about an individual is pretty much wrong. I don't believe for a moment that anyone would honestly kill ten innocent people over one innocent person if they had a choice

    /clap

    You, my friend, killed the thread hehe.

    • CommentAuthorDuostyle
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2009
     
    No one deserves to die, But personally i would save the 10 people. if the 1 man thats stuck has his life ahead of him he would be saved by a miracle or a scientific reason. Which is usually reffered to as fate. So fate has nothing to do with my decision. I will choose to save the 10 People.
    • CommentAuthorkyuubi92
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2009
     
    Well ,really it all depends on who i'm killing.. if say my close friend in order to save a someone.. who could be a bad person or a group of bad people, so depending who i'm killing or saving..
    • CommentAuthor-wiseman-
    • CommentTimeOct 27th 2009 edited
     

    I know this isn't a constructive response, but never the less:

     wait for the trains front wheels to pass the intersect, then hit the switch so the back wheels turn to the other track.
    Hold tight while the train derails and hope you live to ride another day 

    • CommentAuthorlkji25
    • CommentTimeOct 27th 2009
     
    20 days on and I would still kill the 10 people without hesitation.
    • CommentAuthorarshdeep79
    • CommentTimeOct 28th 2009
     
    I would save the 10, since the likeliness of 10 people doing something important in the future is most than just the one. Also, I would rather have just one sad family pissed at me than 10...
    • CommentAuthorplayer55
    • CommentTimeOct 28th 2009
     
    This is my opinion, so don't take offence.

    I would "kill" that single person if it meant saving ten, for several reasons:

    1. It wouldn't feel right, letting ten people die just because I was too scared or unwilling to make a decision.
    2. This may sound emotionless, but regardless of the quality of the person's life, it is just one life, the death of one person is less of a tragedy than the death of ten.
    3. I don't want to seem like a ~censored~ when I say this, but I would rather have ten families thank me and one family hate me than vice versa.
    4. If I was the single person on the tracks, I'd rather sacrifice myself for the "greater good", If I lived with the fact than ten people are dead while I survived, I'd probably kill myself from the guilt.
    • CommentAuthoriGotSkill
    • CommentTimeJan 24th 2010
     
    It's not up to us to play God, it's Gods game and he will surely intervene and save the most deserving (unless he decides to call them home to sit at his right hand)

51 to 59 of 59

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. >
Add your comments
 
Back to Discussions Top of Page