Is killing One to Save Ten Wrong?

I have a question for you. Likewise, there are two answers: yes or no.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

None, personally.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Would you like to discuss the ethics of spousal abuse?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

With the exception of those who would die.

 

Answer the question.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I said: none, personally.

The consequence of taking action is to be sued for murder, or at least wrongful death.

 

Better to phrase the question as I have throughout this conversation" If given the opportunity, would I or wouldn't I beat my wife? My answer would be No.

If you were given the opportunity to choose between one life or many, which would you choose?

 

Well, not certain how to approach that. Are we placing a dollar value on life?

 

I get to choose the circumstances of the question.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You can give all the reasons you want for not answering it, but as you now see, not answering a question doesn't mean you are avoiding it, it often means the question is poorly-formed, leading to a meaningless answer. Agreed?

 

No. The doctor standing at the switch is under no obligation to place a value on lives, and under no obligation to make a choice, let alone take an action.

 

There was an intersting case many years ago, whose outcome astonished me and I think to speaks to the American justice system.

A business merchant got caught in a trash compactor behind their building. A woman saw it happen but chose (for whatever reason) not to intervene. The merchant died.

The court ruled in her favor. They declared she was not guilty of any crime for letting the merchant die, despite the fact that she was in a position to save them.

 

I think the question is pretty straight forward. If you want me to erect a scenario with all the elements of good story, I suppose I could do that; but the question is really quite simple. It's a question with two possible answers, but it allows for only one outcome. I'm not asking whether you are still killing people; I'm asking what you would do given the choice. If you choose not to act, then you allow for the death of many. If you choose to act, then you choose for the death of one.

I use the Orlando shooting as an example, where one death might have saved many. I can't invent a scenario to tailor the specifics for your needs. Again, it really is a simple question, and it really needs no more than a yes or no answer. To help you better approach the question, I offer you the following: Would you kill one person to save many people?

The larger question is the value we place on life, and whether numbers equate to greater value.

 

Futility, or Not Futility? That Is the Question!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Click because you know there's something there, even if it's barely relevant.​

In the U.S., we already have precedent: If you spot him walking toward the club with an AR-15, there is nothing you can do.

Call the police? They can't do anything.

Kill the guy? You just murdered someone for a presupposition; that you would have been correct is irrelevant.

Many places in Europe, I think their only question if you went after the guy would be, "I mean, sure, it worked and all, but, you know―(ahem!)―really?"

Because, you know, yeah, angrily charging a guy with an AR-15 isn't particularly smart.

No matter what might come of it? There are other things to do; if he's going to start shooting he's going to start shooting the moment anyone breaks.

It might be that the best thing to do is try to get ahead of, or simply flank around the advent for the sake of harm reduction. There comes a point at which no good outcomes are left; aim for the least bad, I suppose.

In which case, we might as well also pause on the idea that if we ask a dumb enough question, we can get a pretty straightforward answer: If you have to outrun a bullet, and must presume you won't make it, would you rather be farther away from the shooter, say, in the street as he starts shooting because that idiot over there just suicide-charged a guy with an AR-15, and thereby cling to that narrow hope that you just might get out alive, or nearby, in close quarters, so you can go down fighting?

It's not a matter of faulting the victims, but, rather, accounting for the evident reality. On UA93, passengers rallied up in order to challenge the hijackers; that is to say, when everything broke, not enough people charged. It will be interesting to find out if the forensic data from Orlando can determine how many people charged the shooter; generally speaking, nobody charges "no matter what might come of it".

Once we cross a certain abstract threshold within the event dynamic―the proverbial no way back―everything becomes harm reduction, even if one has decided to be the disrupting force. That is, while calculating the best chance to counterattack, one would still be trading out other lives for time instead of simply charging blindly no matter what the outcome.

At that point, I think the answer is most people wouldn't run and stand in front of the out-of-control train, either, because they know that won't work.

I would like to think I would do something. To the other, if I'm going to die trying to pull it off, I might as well pull off something. Futility is futile.

 

None of the patrons of the club had a gun? Other than the shooter, that is?

 

A variation...What if one could go back in time and land in Germany pre Adolf Hitler's rise to infamy...say when he was a young boy....Would you be justified in killing him?

 

Why would they?

 

Perty easy hypothical for me... ie... yes... i woud kill the shooter.!!!

It often does.!!!

 

I woud kill him.!!!

 

Where is the dispute ?
We are talking ifs and buts, but if the circumstances are as clear and crisp as your pointer, then no hesitation in killing one. But list down such circumstances. Take for example, a patient suffering from highly contagious untreatable disease, escapes and runs towards a group of innocent people whom he can infect...then if he cannot be stopped, kill him, but who decides ?