Morality question: Would you kill 67 people to save 68 lives?

[Gothic Sponge]

Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of.......Oh nevermind!

:silly:

[JohnLocke]

1. Utilitarianism doctrine says yes (nt).

[Guaranteed]

20. Yes, but it's ridiculously wrong.

:P

[ogradda]

2. i can't even bring myself to squish bugs

n/t

[Nevernose]

3. Star Trek IV was better than Star Trek III

And that's all I knows, except that Star Trek III was underrated. A better question: is the special edition any good?

[JVS]

4. No. If 68 people are killed by someone/something other than me, I have...

no blame.

If I kill 67 people, then their deaths are on me.

[Robeson]

8. I like your answer.

[JVS]

10. My ethics class at the University of Pittsburgh (one of the top 5 in phil)

was focused on the doctrines of effect and doing and allowing.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doing-allowing/

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. ok you asked a question that for me is not that light

As I used to be a medic and as field senior medic I had to actually practice triage... and play god

So you know the kind of decisions sometimes made by medics and other medical personnel, I had to let a two year old go... head injuries were severe, she seemed to be in agonal breathing pattern and my resources were few and far betweeen in a massive Multi Casualty Incident, while she died, I took care of a 68 year old wiht a broken hip... serioius injury but he had a chance to live, while the two year old did not. She was barely meters from us as we put this man on a board and she expired her last...

Another time, I had to triage as DOA a 15 year old who was run over by a car.... and in the meantime treat her mother, her sister and two younger brothers... again a matter of resources. She had a crushed chest and broken hip, THe coroner report also revealed a broken back.

Of course there is the time I decleared a five year old on the spot, she was dead... and she looked like my niece

So this is not such a joking matter, don't you think?

[erniesam]

6. is this like asking, would you kill 67 Iraqis to save 68 americans?

[jpgray]

7. Actively kill, or let die? (nt)

[Placebo]

9. Can I kill 68 to save 1 life?

Pwwwwwwwwwwwwwwease? *puppy dog eyes*

[Gothic Sponge]

11. Why are you people replying seriously to this thread?

It's just another dumb thread by Gothic Sponge! Ignore him! He is an ass, and he smells like broccoli!

:p

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Sorry this is not theory to me, but practice

and it is NOT a funny thread or even question. It is a very serious question.

Aparently I am not alone

[izzie]

13. No I could not.

I have no right to do the first thing even if I could say for sure the second thing would happen.

[billyskank]

14. Only if the 67 were about to murder the 68. n/t

[REP]

15. If The 67 Were Pissing Me Off, Yes

[dr.strangelove]

16. No

I'm not the killing type. I probably could do it if someone I care fore deeply were in danger, but I don't think I could kill in old blood, even if it was to save someone else. More details would help. but this was apparently not a serious thread.

[City of Mills]

17. No

What if I was a serial killer who killed 67 prostitutes, but several of those prostitutes would've had unprotected sex with their johns and infected 68 of them with HIV...i'd still be a bastard.

So, no.

[Metatron]

18. Could I ask the 68 their political affiliation before I decided?

:evilgrin:

[Orsino]

19. No...

...because I'm certain that such an exchange wouldn't be that simple. Because I can't kill that many people with a single decision, I believe that saving a greater number of people is also beyond my capacity. Others would have to be involved, and I'd have to ask why they would require all those deaths--or why I should trust them to save *anybody* after they offered or agreed to such a deal.

The atom-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not functional examples, as the alleged "saving" of lives lay in the surrender of the Japanese government, not in the blasts themselves. The American government gambled on shock and awe, and in those cases the arithmetic might have paid off for them--in the short run. Today? I believe that violence begets violence. Our invasion and conquest of Iraq has so far pacified only Libya, it seems. And for how long? Remember that a life "saved" can be lost later, and will probably be affected by the means used to "secure" them.

Part of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki deal, remember, has been the decades of nuclear anxiety and brinksmanship that followed.