Would you order the death of one innocent child

[Feanorcurufinwe]

if it would prevent the killing of 10 million people?

[Goldmund]

1. There are two different questions here:

1) Would it make sense? and
2) Would you have the balls to?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. You forgot

Would it be the right thing to do?

[Goldmund]

4. Well, I avoid using the phrase

"the right thing to do", because I don't really know what it means. It seems to me that it assumes absolute morality, ie. religion.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Well I can believe

that I know the right thing to do, while simultaneously understanding that I am only exercising my relative judgement, and despite the fact that I'm an atheist (I don't really know what that has to do with this, frankly).

[Goldmund]

17. What that has to do with it...

...is that if you assume there is absolute morality and only a single universal scale for good and evil, then at postive infinity you have the ultimate universal good (god) and at negative infinity you have the ultimate universal evil (devil). To my mind, that is the axis of religious belief -- not necessarily the belief in a conscious or omnipotent universal being.

If you don't believe there is such a universal scale then I don't see how you can believe in "THE right thing to do". There is "THE right thing to do for YOU" or for me, but there could be many "right things to do". Without getting into the semantics, I think it's self evident that the way this phrase is culturally used, a single right thing to do is assumed. In other words, there is a single scale of good and evil that applies to everyone.

Otherwise, what's the use of asking the question?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. I don't agree with any of your assumptions or premises, sorry. nt

[Goldmund]

50. What specifically "assumptions" or "premises"?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. All of them. I don't agree with any part of anything you've said. nt

[Goldmund]

56. Okay. That's real constructive.

[troublemaker]

3. 50% of the respondents are MONSTERS!

How can you live with yourselves?

[Goldmund]

5. LOL

That's pretty funny. I was going to ask "which 50 percent" but I'll refrain.

[rbnyc]

54. That's what I want to know. (nt)

[troublemaker]

93. Bless you. If even one person gets a joke then it was all worthwhile.

[Bluebear]

6. What is this, Sophie's Choice?

[Massacure]

7. I'd kill the girl.

[wtf]

11. I agree with troublemaker

how could you let 10 million people die? That's just insane.

[Kinkistyle]

19. How about your own child?

Update that poll "Would you kill one child, even if it was your own child."

[leftofthedial]

9. which ten million people?

neocons?

fascists?

murderers?

who?

[jmowreader]

10. There will be a lot of "innocent children" in that 10M

Let's hear it for a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't scenario.

One kid is toast versus ten million people (probably five million of whom would be children) being toast? I gotta go with killing the one.

Even if it's one Democrat's child versus ten million freepers, I gotta side with the ten million.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. But you aren't the cause of those deaths like you would be the cause of

the innocent child's death.

[wtf]

13. well

If I understand the question correctly, of course you would be.

[Goldmund]

20. Isn't that a very selfish argument?

As in, 10 million would be dead, but at least you'll be able to look in the mirror?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. Is that your standard for right or wrong?

Whether something is 'selfish'?

[Goldmund]

48. That was my question to you.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. What is your question?

I could have sworn your question was: Isn't that a very selfish argument?

Now you seem to be saying it is something else.


What question is it that you want me to respond to?

[Goldmund]

59. Yes, that was my question literally

...but it was obviously rhetorical.

If this is an ethical discussion -- and it is, since you commented on "THE right thing to do" in an earlier post -- then how can it possibly make a difference who causes the death? You have the power to decide whether 10 million die or 1 dies. The only caviat with the 1 is that you personally would have to do it -- and that is what you use to say that you'd let the 10 million die. So, in your "right thing to do" universe, how is it right to let the 10 million die rather than 1 simply because you'll have clearer conscience and less discomfort if the 10 million die? It's a clear ethical contradiction.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. Well my answer to your question is

Is that your standard for right or wrong? Whether something is 'selfish'?



I understood in the first place that it was a rhetorical question, but sorry, if you are gonna ask a rhetorical question, you have to be prepared for your rhetoric to be challenged, by the question being answered.


If this is an ethical discussion -- and it is, since you commented on "THE right thing to do" in an earlier post -- then how can it possibly make a difference who causes the death? You have the power to decide whether 10 million die or 1 dies. The only caviat with the 1 is that you personally would have to do it -- and that is what you use to say that you'd let the 10 million die. So, in your "right thing to do" universe, how is it right to let the 10 million die rather than 1 simply because you'll have clearer conscience and less discomfort if the 10 million die? It's a clear ethical contradiction.


Why are you assuming you would 'have a clearer conscience' in the one case or the other? Isn't it more likely that you wouldn't have a clear conscience in either case? Are your feelings really even relevant?


Really though, since you have already said that you don't believe there is such a thing as 'a right thing to do' I don't see how a discussion of this issue with you would be productive. We lack the necessary common ground for fruitful discourse.

[Goldmund]

67. That's not what I said.

I said I don't believe there's such a thing as "THE right thing to do". One is relative, one is absolute. Fundamentally different.

Why are you assuming you would 'have a clearer conscience' in the one case or the other? Isn't it more likely that you wouldn't have a clear conscience in either case? Are your feelings really even relevant?

I think you're completely misundertanding me. It was _you_ who made the distinction of you personally causing the deaths or not. If it isn't clarity of your conscience, what, then, does that disctinction rest upon? How does it make an ethical difference?

It was my whole point to question the relevancy of your own feelings, now you're asking me "are your feelings even relevant?". I'm totally confused with what you're saying. If your feelings aren't relevant, how can you make a disctinction between who causes the deaths, you or some third power -- when your decision will determine whether 1 or 10 million die?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

72. Whatever.

Based on what you've said - whether capitalized or not - in my opinion, we lack the necessary common ground for fruitful discourse.

[Goldmund]

74. I find your reponses pretty bizarre.

It wasn't about capitalization, either -- it was about "the" vs. "a" right thing to do.

[jmowreader]

21. How I read the question...

There are two groups of people.

Group A has one innocent child in it.

Group B has ten million people in it.

One of those two groups is gonna die, in its entirety. The other group will live.

This seems to be a case of "if you could shoot Hitler before he went bad, would you?"

If that's the choice, I don't think anyone would object to killing the one innocent child--any more than they would object to killing anyone.

The ideal situation is to not get into these logic traps.

[uhhuh]

22. I would object

I have posted below my reasons. If Hitler were still a child, or I had an oppurtunity to take out his parents, there is no guarantee that something worse wouldn't have resulted. I wouldn't kill him as a child. You can't kill someone for potentials when you don't know what else might be changed by that killing.

[GiovanniC]

14. 10 Million Freepers -- That Could Really Swing an Election

Kidding, kidding.















Sort of.

[uhhuh]

15. Not only "NO", but "Hell No!"

This question does not give a scenario at all. If this is a purely ethical question, with the infomation provided, the only innocent person allowed for is the child. That means the 10 million could be an advancing army of bloodthirsty conquerers, hell bent of killing many more innocents, or it could be a random group of people in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I have even given thought to the old "back in time" scenario, in which one would have to consider if you would have killed Hitler or Stalin's parents in order to prevent them from being born.

I have concluded that, although we know the results of their lives, we don't know what would have happened if they did'nt exist. Would it have been better or worse? Could we justify killing innocents to prevent their atrocites, only to find that worse madmen and killers could be born that we have never heard of because these two were there to prevent their ascension?

Is there a scenario that you could put forth that can definitely show that 10 million or more people would certainly be saved if this child dies, and can you further make the case that greater harm won't come ultimately from the child's death? If you can't, then there is never ANY justification for the murder of innocents that I can see.

[Branjor]

16. The question is bullshit....

because the death of one innocent child could never insure the survival of 10 million other people.

I say "Find another way. Period."

And what's with the assumption that the innocent child would have to be a girl?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. WTF

And what's with the assumption that the innocent child would have to be a girl?


I don't know - what's with that assumption? It's not one that I made, nothing in any of my posts says anything whatsoever about the sex of the child.

So where did you come up with it?

[cosmokramer]

18. Neither. You kill the person who asks you to choose.

[Senior citizen]

23. BINGO!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. This is just a different way of asking

'do the ends justify the means'

[AntiCoup2K4]

26. If I had a time machine, and the address of Prescott Bush's mother...

I would gladly volunteer to perform the abortion on great granny Bush that would have spared us Hitler, Hussein, Bin Laden, Reagan, and everything else connected with the Bush Criminal Empire. I think God would forgive me for it, under the circumstances.

[Walt Starr]

27. This poll has no basis in reality

ergo, I did not vote in it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. Yes, it is a question of ethics

if ethics don't exist in 'your reality' then it will be hard to make such a choice.

[kayell]

31. No, it is a question that assumes that one can know the future with

absolute certainty. It is a question that allows one to play God. It is the kind of question that the BFEE uses to justify bombing the hell out of innocent civilians in Iraq, because of the horrors that they KNOW that will be avoided by killing or capturing Saddam.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. No you are talking about one of the answers, not the question.

It is not posing the question that is evil.

Do the ends justify the means? In this hypothetical case, which is not meant to be anything other than a hypothetical case, the 'evil means' is the killing of an innocent child -- I'm assuming everyone here considers that to be evil. The 'good ends' are the prevention of the killing of ten million people - I'm assuming everyone here considers that to be good.

So if you are willing to order the death of one innocent child in order to prevent the killing of 10 million people, you are saying the ends justify the means.

[Goldmund]

78. That's a huge and absolutely unsubstantiated leap.

"So if you are willing to order the death of one innocent child in order to prevent the killing of 10 million people, you are saying the ends justify the means."

1) It doesn't mean that "the ends justify the means" if by that phrase you mean that the goal is to save the 10 million and any and all cost to that effect is worth it. Hence the question is phrased as "1 vs 10 million". Such "ends justify the means" ethical questions make sense when asked "is preventing another 9/11 worth 100,000 casualties overseas" or something like that. But not in this case. Espeically if the "ends" and the "means" are of the same species -- deaths of people, therefore as comparable as they get.

2) One could turn the tables around on you and say "Does refusing to kill the single child (ends) justify letting the 10 million die (means)?". The "ends" could be saving the 1 child and the "means" letting 10 million die.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

88. I find your opinion to be wholly without merit

you criticized my conclusion but did not examine my argument.


I repeat my prediction that we will be unable to have a constructive discussion because we lack common ground and goals.

For example, this: Hence the question is phrased as "1 vs 10 million".


No, it's not. It's phrased the way I phrased it.

[Goldmund]

95. If we can't have a constructive discussion,

as you may think, anyone else is free to respond to any of my posts or yours.

[Walt Starr]

36. Since the given ethical situation cannot exist in reality

the question has more to do with ignoring reality than with ethics

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. Look - we get it

you don't like the question, and you're not going to answer it. But you haven't enlightened us on why we should care.

[Swamp Rat]

40. Yes

But if I were to vote, it would be to "kill" this poll.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

44. I have a hard time understanding why people object to the question

being posed. I can understand someone not wanting to make the choice, but the outrage at simply having the question posed is something I don't understand.


OK, you don't want to face this particular ethical dilemma - fine. Why object to it being discussed? :wtf: I don't get it.

[Swamp Rat]

51. Ok, I'll answer you

The poll had only 2 choices. Both condoned killing for whatever reason. If you had put the option "other" I would have participated in the poll. I don't mean to censure you, or deny anyone their right to speak, have polls, etc.

You are incorrect when you say that I "don't want to face this particular ethical dilemma." The ethical dilemma is of your own creation and you must answer this for yourself. I am not faced with this problem, nor will I ever be.

"Other" is my answer. I do not condone killing under ANY circumstance, especially when it is presented in a hypothetical situation in a poll. Please feel free to create another poll that includes another possibility, and I'll be happy to vote as long as it isn't bifurcated into choosing the "lesser of two evils."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. You didn't understand the question.

Both condoned killing for whatever reason.


No. That is nothing but a fundamental misunderstanding of the question.




I have no idea where you came up with this notion.

[Swamp Rat]

58. You are right

You have no idea where I came up with this notion, but I wish you did. I already gave you MY answer, but you reject it.

There is no "fundamental misunderstanding" here, except that you choose not to understand where I am coming from.

I have to go to school now, but I'm willing to discuss this with you at a later time. I must admit that while I dislike your poll, I hope this thread doesn't die because I think a discussion ABOUT this poll would be relevant if not interesting.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. You are right

in that I do not understand where you are coming from. I don't understand where you got the notion that I or my poll or either of the choices in my poll 'condones killing'. I posed an ethical dilemma. Both choices are meant to be undesirable. That is the nature of a dilemma.


You are quite wrong however when you accuse me of 'choosing' not to understand. It's pretty insulting, imho, and it will make it hard for me to hear the subsequent things you say without bias against you, but I will do my best to try.

[Swamp Rat]

69. Before I leave this thread

I didn't insult you.

Though, the tenor of your comments with me and others on this board appears to be condescending. I cannot account for your lack of understanding, nor your bias, as you said, you have against me.

Your poll does require someone to condone, as in excuse, killing for whatever personal, ethical, or moral reason.

"Both choices are meant to be undesirable. That is the nature of a dilemma."

Yes, and that is the dilemma that you posed.

In my estimation, this is a conundrum. Does that help you understand where I'm coming from?

I did not mean to insult you by saying that you "choose not to understand", but I'm curious why you feel this way. It is obvious that you still don't understand - for whatever reason.

Now, I will go to school. I find this very interesting, and I am willing to listen to your arguments as long as you willing to listen to mine.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. OK, we're even

you don't understand where I'm coming from when I say that you insulted me, and I don't understand where you are coming from when you say Your poll does require someone to condone, as in excuse, killing for whatever personal, ethical, or moral reason.

you made this assertion a couple of times and I understand that you feel that way, but you haven't presented any argument that I can see that explains why you feel that way.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. This is one of those stupid philosophy class questions

that has nothing to do with reality.

[elf]

30. WHO IS ASKING THOSE INSANE QUESTIONS??

I hope I live in a society, where THE ANSWER IS VERY CLEAR!

This nation lives under GOD???!!!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. Philosophers, moralists, anyone who is trying to judge right from wrong

If the questions are never asked, the answers won't be clear to anyone.

[GreenArrow]

32. John 3:16

"for God so loved the world..."

[DrWeird]

37. But would you do it to win reelection?

Because that's why George Bush did it.

[Monte Carlo]

39. Sounds like one of those Utilitarian vs. Kantian things...

... you know, the greatest good vs. strict moral imperatives.

Knowing as little about the situation as I do, I would have to say yes, I would order the death of the innocent child in order to save 10 million. There are just no good answers to these type of questions.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

41. when would this situation ever be applicable?

when will killing an innocenct child prevent the death of millions of people?

i don't like this question.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. When you are trying to decide

whether the ends justify the means. This is the most extreme hypothetical example I can think of with which to ponder that question.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

46. i am sure you can think up much more extreme hypothetical questions.

like: if you could save the universe by beating your child to death with a wet noodle and then eating his/her body in less 12 hours with no dipping sauce would you do it?

what if what if what if.

or imagine you can only save the universe by thinking up the most unrealistic hypothetical situation, would you do it?

that's cool that you want the "most extreme ethical question ever" but your hypothetical leaves out all reasons for the hypothetical.

and no i don't object to your situation being discussed, i just don't understand why you would want to discuss it. what will you learn from this? what is the point of asking the question?

i think the reason you are getting flak for posing the question is it is a very extreme situation with no details. my first reaction is to ask why. of course i would choose to kill a child to save the millions if i knew the details of the situation, but that is what you leave out. how could this ever happen?

if the question is not realistic, it simply seems meaningless.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. You pose a very easy question to answer

will you learn from this? what is the point of asking the question?

I will learn how many of the respondents, given no other information, would order the death of an innocent child in order to prevent the killing of 10 million people. The point was to both to spur discussion of the ethical question of whether the ends justify the means, and also to spur self-examination on this question on the part of the respondents.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

55. fair enough

i think just throwing a question like this out with no context is not exactly fair to the potential respondent, i would prefer to see a question like this posed along side the information you just posted as to why. when i see a question like this, i don't think of what i would answer, but why the asker would ask it.

[Goldmund]

I don't understand why people have a problem with the question.

It's a metaphysical question, not a realistic one. It doesn't matter what realistic scenarios this could fit or not fit. Just use your imagination if you need it to be realistic -- but the premise is you _know_ the 10 million will be saved if you kill the child, and you _know_ they won't if you don't.

[ArkDem]

43. Nah, I usually get the chicken.

[Delano]

47. No.

For the simple reason that you didn't specify that it was the ONLY way to save the 10 million. I would try to find ANOTHER way.

You know, like Truman DIDN'T do at Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

[booley]

61. I'd Kill Myself

if I knew.FOR A FACT that doing so would save 10 million lives and it was the only way

of course, it's that KNOWING FOR A FACT and NO OTHER WAY that add a kicker to this all. Rarely is that the case

[Feanorcurufinwe]

65. Yeah but

I know I'm not 'innocent' so it's less of a dilemma whether to kill myself.

[Redleg]

62. This is not a very realistic scenario.

EOM

[Az]

63. I would reprogram the computer

so that the Klingon vessels were fooled into thinking Romulans had just decloaked in the area. Then I would rescue the innocent child and warp out of the area.

Never give up looking for a way out of a problem. Do not accept the terms given you if the stakes are too high.

[goobergunch]

66. Genesis of the Daleks - Doctor Who reference?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/doctorwho/episodeguide/genesisofdaleks/

EDIT: Added link

[ieoeja]

68. Computer: "Drive implosion in 10 seconds"

Scotty: "The only way to shut down the drive is to vent it to space."

Computer: "9"

Mr Spock: "I am scanning one life form in the engineering room. A human juvenile."

Computer: "8"

Capt Kirk: "Can we contact her by ship's intercom? Tell her to get out of there?"

Computer: "7"

Mr Spock: "The only functioning way in or out of engineering at this time is via the transfer tubes. She would have to manually open the hatch..."

Computer: "6"

Mr Spock: "... then climb six hundred feet of ladder under 1.2 gees of acceleration to reach the nearest point of safety."

Computer: "5"

Capt Kirk: "Scotty, can you beam her out of there?"

Computer: "4"

Scotty: "The drive engine interferes with the teleporters, Cap'n."

Computer: "3"

Mr Spock: "May I remind you there are over 10 million refugees on this ship who will die if we do not vent engineering NOW."

Computer: "2"

Dr McCoy: "My God, Jim! It's just a little child."

Computer: "1"

Capt Kirk: "Vent engin..."

BOOM


Audience: "I paid ten bucks for this?!?"

[Feanorcurufinwe]

80. That's a slightly different scenario

Which I would have worded:

"If the only means of preventing the death of 10 million people would incidentally cause the death of an innocent child, would enact such means?"


The differences being that in my scenario, the death was not incidental, but the death itself was 'ordered', i.e., an execution. Also, I left open the possibility that there were other means of preventing the 10 million deaths.

[ieoeja]

90. You didn't stipulate much in your scenario.

So I made my own. Given the updated parameters ...


Computer: "Photonic explosion in 10 seconds."

Dr McCoy: "Those bastards. They implanted a bomb in this little girl's body."

Computer: "9"

Capt Kirk: "Can't you remove it?"

Computer: "8"

Dr McCoy: "No. It is part of her DNA. Removing it would kill her."

Computer: "7"

Capt Kirk: "Can it be deactivated."

Computer: "6"

Dr McCoy: "I'm not a miracle worker, Jim! It is part of her DNA. It is part of her."

Computer: "5"

Mr Spock: "What then are the options Doctor?"

Computer: "4"

Dr McCoy: "The only we could stop this bomb from exploding is to vaporize her."

Computer: "3"

Mr Spock: "May I remind you there are over 10 million refugees on this ship who will die if we do not dispose of the bomb NOW."

Computer: "2"

Dr McCoy: "My God, Spock! You don't expect me kill a little girl, you green blooded monster?!?"

Computer: "1"

Capt Kirk (pulling his phaser): "Stand back, Bon..."

BOOM


Freeper Audience: "Aww man, that little girl was too cute and annoying. I'd have probably vaporized her long before finding out she was a walking timebomb."

[JVS]

70. Is there one innocent child among the 10 million?

Not that that would perfectly clear it up, there is a difference between making something happen and standing by when something happens. Also if the choice is clear to the world it would make a difference, it would be hard to resist the alure of being the savior of 10,000,000 grateful (one would imagine) people. After all if you had each of them send you $5 as a expression of their gratitude you'd be set for life. On the other hand it would suck to be arrested for killing the kid.

[genius]

73. We don't kill children where I come from

Some people here need some help

[Feanorcurufinwe]

76. It is amazing how

once you accept the proposition that it is OK to commit one evil in order to prevent a greater evil, or to achieve a greater good, you can justify anything.


But imagine a world where people just refused to do what they think is evil, no matter what the supposed reason or justification...

[Goldmund]

87. Then they would definitely not make decisions

that result in 10 million deaths.

[lostnfound]

75. Do you think God appreciates questions like these?

I don't.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

77. Why don't you tell us what God wants?

and then we can spread God's message through the world, o prophet...

[lostnfound]

96. My answer was legitimate, not intended for offense..

It is how I answer the question if posed to me.

Because to my mind, I've wasted much time (and been encouraged to waste much time) over the years considering such proposed hypotheticals as this. The conclusion that I would reach from it is that one's choice comes down to an inevitable evil OR a powerless innocence. Which may well be true. But not particularly productive.

Or perhaps you've heard the words in an REM song.. 'we have found a way to talk around the problem'.

No bible-thumper here, no divine voice in my head. But after seeing some of the ugliness of the world I choose to have a bit of faith -- no bigger than a mustard seed, and not particularly Christian -- how shall I put it? That the game isn't rigged..or that there is an elegant simplicity to it, not a trick..or that the important choices are between easy evils and difficult goodness.

A hypothetical answer to your hypothetical question. In real life, I'd probably make a Faustian mistake.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

97. 'offense'?? wtf are you talking about?

scratching my head on that one, for sure

But you avoided my question: Why don't you tell us what God wants?

You told us what God doesn't want -- according to you God "doesn't appreciate questions like these' -- so since you have direct knowledge of the word of God -- much like Moses -- I think it is your duty and obligation to share that with the world.

[kiahzero]

79. I voted Yes

I see it this way:

There are two paths in front of me. Down one path, and one innocent child dies. Down the other path, and 10 million people die. Existentially, I cannot stand at the fork forever, nor can I turn around... doing either simply puts be down the path on which 10 million people die.

Looking at the situation in this way, the answer is pretty clear: I act to save as many people as I can, and go down the path under which one innocent child dies.

I killed one person. The people who voted No killed 10 million. I may be a monster, but at least 9,999,999 more people are alive because I am a monster.

[Goldmund]

81. You're not a monster.

You're courageous, because you're willing to suffer (in your conscience) for the good of the people you saved.

[kiahzero]

84. That's what I figure

It's actually less egregious in the case I mentioned below, because you're actually taking yourself out along with the innocent child, so you don't have to live with yourself afterwards.

[kiahzero]

82. To those that demand a "realistic example", here's one

courtesy of "The Simpsons."

You're hanging by a wire, over the side of a dam, holding on to an innocent child that fell. Unfortunately, said wire is attached to explosives that a terrorist will detonate. The dam will collapse, flooding the town that exists in it's shadow, killing all its residents. You have two options:

1: Snip the wire. Both you and the innocent child will fall to your doom, but the town will be saved.

2: Do nothing. You and the child are far enough away from the explosive that you will survive, but the town will be destroyed, killing all its residents.

The terrorist is moments away from detonating the explosives, so there is not time to come up with an alternate plan.

[Goldmund]

83. How did it end...

in that Simpsons episode?

[kiahzero]

85. Bob snipped the wire

By an accident of fate, however, his legs wrapped around a pipe in the dam. So, he chose to snip the wire, killing the innocent child. We cannot view his decision differently simply because of the fortunate outcome... moral luck must not play a role in ethics.

[Goldmund]

86. I agree

[Feanorcurufinwe]

89. You just may be on an internet message board if...

a Simpson's episode is cited as a realistic example of something....

[kiahzero]

91. It's not a bad example, though

It's feasible... that's all that was required.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

94. The problem is, when posing a hypothetical,

you aren't talking about a specific case. If someone where to look at that example and answer the poll, they'd be answering the wrong question.


For example, my question says that ordering the child's execution would prevent the 10 million deaths, but it does not add the constraint that it is the only way to prevent those deaths.

[0007]

92. I think you been grazing on the open plains too long Feanorcurufinwe

Or hanging out in Miles City,
which ever comes first.