[shoe the fifth]

You are alone in your room, when you get a call from your classmate, who says he is going to blow up a nearby elementary school at 3:00 pm that day, killing 1000 children. You alert the police, but you are running out of time as it is already 2:45. you run to the school to try to reason with him, but it is no use as he it turns out he is deadset on killing these children and refuses to listen to logic or reason. you try hitting him in order to make him turn off the bombs. In a hollywood-like twist of fate it turns out that the bombs are somehow connected directly to his heart and they only possible way to stop them is to kill him. The police will not arrive in time to relieve you of this responsibility and the bombs can not be deactivated any other way. looking around you see a large blunt object with which to do the deed.

will you kill your classmate to save the children?


Is it morally justifiable to kill one person to save more than one? how would answer change if instead of children it were teenagers, or doctors, or the elderly, or perhaps convicted felons or maybe nazi's or any other group? how about if it was less than 1000? what about more?

This post has been edited by shoe the fifth: 29 September 2008 - 12:58 AM

[Autoeroticrat]

In such a clear cut situation yes.

However you need to be in possession of all the facts before doing something so drastic as killing someone. My only fear is that states often like to act as though their aggression is some kind of preemptive strike.

[Bakunin's Dream]

Your example seems more the address the question, "is it morally justifiable to kill a person who intends on killing other people?" The most interesting philosophical thought experiments in this vein have to do with causing the death of an innocent bystander in order to save multiple lives. More: http://en.wikipedia....Trolley_problem

Edit: Also, Kantian vs. Utilitarian debates like the ones described in the link can be incredibly frustrating because when you go through all the thought experiments the only thing you can really conclude is that nobody's moral intuitions are consistent at all.

This post has been edited by Bakunin's Dream: 29 September 2008 - 01:23 AM

[The Mongol-Swedes]

Unfortunately reality rarely provides people with the opportunity to really get the story straight before executing, and as stated already, we've proven ourselves individually and as a society to be pretty inconsistent with any sort of 'guidelines' or moral codes, if you prefer.

Despite what may come of such a fundamental question, there are always going to be exceptions to the rule.

What's the new saying these days? There is no universal 'truth' and everything is permissible?

inb4 [Insert Book Here] universal morality etc etc

[KCToker]

This sounds eerily like a Theory of Knowledge question I had last year

[Boyle]

Bakunin, on Sep 29 2008, 12:15 AM, said:

Your example seems more the address the question, "is it morally justifiable to kill a person who intends on killing other people?" The most interesting philosophical thought experiments in this vein have to do with causing the death of an innocent bystander in order to save multiple lives. More: http://en.wikipedia....Trolley_problem

Edit: Also, Kantian vs. Utilitarian debates like the ones described in the link can be incredibly frustrating because when you go through all the thought experiments the only thing you can really conclude is that nobody's moral intuitions are consistent at all.

I love the "Trolley Problems". They bring up the cracks in our morals for all to see.

I would have no issue killing my friend at the moment, though. I would probably blame myself later on for his actions, for some strange reason. Then I'd hit the bottle and look at motorcycles I can't buy. After the drunken haze, I'd pull myself out and look at the facts and (hopefully) come to terms with it.

If I can't come to terms with it, then hey, I still saved a thousand people.

The Mongol-Swedes, on Sep 29 2008, 01:58 AM, said:

What's the new saying these days? There is no universal 'truth' and everything is permissible?

That saying is so unbelievably ignorant.

This post has been edited by Boyle: 29 September 2008 - 03:04 AM

[Kostya]

Truth is possible to obtain, science and the good it has done humanity alone have proved such. Those who seek to cast doubt on the search for scientific truth only do so because they know this search can only end in the utter abrogation of their irrational views (ie religion).

[King Comm]

Bakunin, on Sep 29 2008, 05:15 PM, said:

Your example seems more the address the question, "is it morally justifiable to kill a person who intends on killing other people?" The most interesting philosophical thought experiments in this vein have to do with causing the death of an innocent bystander in order to save multiple lives. More: http://en.wikipedia....Trolley_problem

==Sometimes it's better to allow the five to live, and some times it's better to let them die, it all depends on the circumstances, it is less than helpful, or may even be dangerous for one to be constricted by an absolute, static set of morality.

[Mack Truck]

If he was going to kill innocent people then yeah, I'd kill him. If I had a friend who was seriously wronged by someone, although I don't see 1,000 school children achieving that, then I'd have a dilemma on my hands.

Like Bakunin pointed out, the trolley problem and its many variants pose much harder questions to answer.

[Republic of Scotland]

Put it this way: If your close enough to kill the person, the bomb can kill you. That's all the justification I'd need to put him in a grave.

This post has been edited by Republic of Scotland: 29 September 2008 - 08:39 AM

[Foggers]

Alone in my room you say? Hmm...

Anyone who claims to be my friend and plans to blow up a school is no friend of mine. I would tear out his heart, deactivate the detonator, bomb whatever, (while the heart is still beating) and slam it back into my friend so that he still lives.


Then I would snap his neck.

But I suppose there will be another twist. It is actually a school for... TERRORIST TRAINING!!!!

So I would say it is morally justifiable. Look at The Dark Knight, the Joker was !@#$@#$ crazy!

[deja]

OP is easy. Killing in defense of another is quite easily justifiable.

Killing in exchange for others is a more difficult question, one that I would still answer yes. I'm a utilitarian.

One dead > two dead. The fact that I'd have to live with the fact I killed an innocent person is my sacrifice.

[jeff744]

I think a better question would be is it justifiable to kill one innocent person if you knew for a fact it would save 1000 others.

[ROMMELHSQ]

I'll kill him without a blink of an eye.

[deja]

jeff744, on Sep 29 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

I think a better question would be is it justifiable to kill one innocent person if you knew for a fact it would save 1000 others.

So much of a better question it's now an integral part of the topic.

Read before posting.

This post has been edited by deja: 29 September 2008 - 11:28 AM

[jeff744]

deja, on Sep 29 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

So much of a better question it's now an integral part of the topic.

Read before posting.

Everyone has been answering killing the man if he planned to kill the 1000, but what if you knew for certain that those 1000 would be saved by killing somebody that has done nothing wrong.

[Foggers]

jeff744, on Sep 29 2008, 05:31 PM, said:

Everyone has been answering killing the man if he planned to kill the 1000, but what if you knew for certain that those 1000 would be saved by killing somebody that has done nothing wrong.

The guilt of the deaths of 1000 (although more indirect) is greater than that of the guilt of killing 1 person (directly). For me anyway, assuming I would feel guilt.

[Masterof9puppets]

Would I kill one evil person to save 500 kids lives?
Yes.

Would I kill one innocent person to save 500 kids lives?
Also yes.

[thedestro]

Answer is null since that is not gonna happen. Give me a practical scenario.

And I wouldn't kill anybody, but I could disable them or something.

[Smallfrog]

If you do nothing you are condemming a large number of innocents to death.