Would you kill 1 to save 5?

[Cemetery-man]

I won't know until the time comes.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

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?

My argument to those scenarios are that they are just excersizes in sociology and philosophy. My philosophy is what I described and I would not willingly sacrifice someone to save others unless they wanted to scrifice themselves.

They usually kept changing the rules until it was clear that they only want you to answer one way and that is to sacrifice the one because it is the "right" answer.

 

[Westside]

this thread is full of win.

SO lets expand.

Could you you kill one innocent child to end all disease on earth?

 

[jedi]

this thread is full of win.

SO lets expand.

Could you you kill one innocent child to end all disease on earth?

gggrrrr u beat me to re-posted a new question. My next question was very similar to yours.

Do you kill 3,000,000,000 (3 billion) people to save 1 who's blood just happens to have the cure for all disease (cancer, aids, etc.) which can then save man kind. 3 Billion BTW is 50% of the earths population.

 

[LFD102]

this is going to get interesting

 

[Westside]

this is going to get interesting

not if everyone keeps posting questions and or not answering them.

 

[RockofStrength]

this thread is full of win.

SO lets expand.

Could you you kill one innocent child to end all disease on earth?

Uh, no.

Do you kill 3,000,000,000 (3 billion) people to save 1 who's blood just happens to have the cure for all disease (cancer, aids, etc.) which can then save man kind. 3 Billion BTW is 50% of the earths population.

Nope.

The ends justify the means will not result in a net good, only a net evil.

 

[sepe]

gggrrrr u beat me to re-posted a new question. My next question was very similar to yours.

Do you kill 3,000,000,000 (3 billion) people to save 1 who's blood just happens to have the cure for all disease (cancer, aids, etc.) which can then save man kind. 3 Billion BTW is 50% of the earths population.

Nope, I wouldn't do it to save the one that can cure all disease. It would be done because there are far too many people on this planet.

How old is the innocent child that I'd have to kill to cure all disease? Under 5, that would be pretty easy but as they age they become stronger and smarter.

 

[dingodog]

Maybe. It depends. I would need more information to give an honest answer.

 

[Benny]

this thread is full of win.

SO lets expand.

Could you you kill one innocent child to end all disease on earth?

I wouldn't want all disease to end unless there was some other method of population control.

 

[Dead Duck]

Absolutely. We are talking about BEER here, right?

I just read the title.

 

[Westside]

Nope, I wouldn't do it to save the one that can cure all disease. It would be done because there are far too many people on this planet.

How old is the innocent child that I'd have to kill to cure all disease? Under 5, that would be pretty easy but as they age they become stronger and smarter.

child so assume under thirteen. We will say for sake of argument shoot the child. You can pick gun.

 

[Westside]

I wouldn't want all disease to end unless there was some other method of population control.

stupidity and old age are still going strong.

 

[Benny]

LOL, true.

 

[sepe]

child so assume under thirteen. We will say for sake of argument shoot the child. You can pick gun.

Oh man, do we have to limit it to one child? Make them 10-13 and this could get fun. I'll take a 12g with dragon's breath.

 

[jbombelli]

I would shoot all 6 just to be on the safe side.

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

maybe we should refer the question to the guy on the left.

http://youtu.be/bHvDS-MlIBU

 

[vitamink]

I'd prefer to kill all 6, but i could see leaving one to go back and tell the others they're next.

 

[jedi]

I would shoot all 6 just to be on the safe side.

I'd prefer to kill all 6, but i could see leaving one to go back and tell the others they're next.

Make sure you aim for the head or else you have to double tap since they come back as zombies.

 

[jbombelli]

Make sure you aim for the head or else you have to double tap since they come back as zombies.

Anybody worth killin' once is worth killin' twice!