Would you kill 1 to save 5?

[jedi]

Interesting read and study.
Would You Kill One Person to Save Five? New Research on a Classic Debate - Yahoo! News

I like this quote from the article,
" Evolution has hardened us into brutal and selfish creatures"

Which we have seen time and time again when STHF occurs that mankind becomes a barbaric animal that looks out for him/herself first.

 

[GBuck]

I would. Although, I don't understand how this is selfish... It seems logical to me. Now, I'm also assuming this is a one time freak incident and not some decision to make every day. Why would you risk 5 people to save one? Isn't that against logic?

 

[KLB]

It becomes selfish when you would let the five die to save the one if that one was a relative or friend.

 

[sepe]

Hell, I'd kill 5 to save 1 even if that 1 wasn't a friend or a relative. I think there are FAR too many people on this planet the way it is.

 

[J_Wales]

Would I kill 1 to save 5?

Yes, unless they were liberals.

 

[GBuck]

I can already tell this thread is going to be full of WIN.

 

[DragonGunner]

We had this in the 7th grade yrs. ago....7 people in a life boat, one has to go out for the others to live....anyone remember that one?....the 'retard' usually gets tossed because he has the "least" to offer back to humanity. I take it this is along the same lines....I say if your not willing to jump on the grenade yourself, don't throw someone else on.

 

[target64]

In a heart beat.

 

[dsells13]

It depends, from an evolutionary perspective, we inately decide to try and protect our family over a stranger, simply because they share genes with us, and inately we want them to be passed on. (This was a topic we discussed in a Social Psychology class I took).

 

[Kase]

It depends on how imporant that "1" person was. If they were more logical to keep around than the five, I would not kill them.

If the five were the logical choice, then obviously I would

 

[jsharmon7]

It seems so easy to say "yes, I'd kill one to save five." What if the "one" was yourself?

 

[lovemachine]

.

 

[Benny]

It all depends on who the 1 is and who the 5 are.

For example:

Kill my son to save 5 adults I've never met? GTFO.

Kill myself (ie put myself in a position where death is inevitable) to save 5 kids? You bet your ass.

 

[RockofStrength]

It seems so easy to say "yes, I'd kill one to save five." What if the "one" was yourself?

I would say that sort of question is pointless, because the mental and emotional state where that choice would be presented to me is effectively impossible to replicate without giving it to me for real. Sure, the right thing to do is let yourself die: that isn't the question. The question is whether you would do what is right. I believe I would let myself die to save others if that choice were given to me, but then untested courage believes the world.

In the original "trolley problem" the answer is obvious: unless the one is for some reason more important or I have some commitment that forces me to protect him from harm then saving the five is simple logic. I, in that case, am minimizing the effects of the disaster as much as possible. I'm still trying to figure out how this says anything about humanity beyond the simple understanding of basic arithmetic

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Does a shepard not leave the 99 to save the 1?

A man has no greater love to give than to lay down his life for another.

 

[RockofStrength]

Does a shepard not leave the 99 to save the 1?

A man has no greater love to give than to lay down his life for another.

He does, but he doesn't kill the 99 and save 1. The passage you quote has no relevance to the aforementioned study.

The second line is 100% spot on.

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

i remember discussing various forms of the trolley problem in college. the basic one seemed easy to me, like mentioned above it's arithmetic. however, this scenario was also posed: you're standing on a bridge above the track, and you are next to an obese person. by pushing him off the bridge and onto the tracks, you can derail the train and save the five people. do you push? as far as body count goes, it's the same- sacrifice one to save five; however it feels creepier to me, like i'm taking a more active role in the one person's death.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

He does, but he doesn't kill the 99 and save 1. The passage you quote has no relevance to the aforementioned study.

The second line is 100% spot on.

I very much disagree. I believe it shows that ALL are important regardless of numbers. A group is not more important than an individual in God's eyes. Willingly sacrificing one to save many is what is barbaric IMO.


ETA: This is where the sacrifice yourself comes in...

 

[RockofStrength]

I very much disagree. I believe it shows that ALL are important regardless of numbers. A group is not more important than an individual in God's eyes. Willingly sacrificing one to save many is what is barbaric IMO.


ETA: This is where the sacrifice yourself comes in...

My point being that the original problem does not permit you to save all the people no matter what and also does not allow you to sacrifice yourself. It is not a matter of any person or persons being more valuable, but rather that using what knowledge I have (i.e. 5 strangers on one track, 1 on the other) I must attempt to save as many as possible. By saving the one, you kill the five. Is that a better choice?

 

[pirate]

If it was immediate family, why stop at 5?

If it was random people who I have no bloodline to, kill 1 save 5.