Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people?
This is the current topic in Lincoln-Douglas debate (a type of competitive debate) topic, or more correctly it is the resolution- Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
Anyways, I thought this was a very interesting philosophical argument and wanted to see what other gamers think.
Of course math is blind, it is nothing but numbers without the logic put into it.
Considering there is no special circumstance to this event, and it just a choice between if 1 dies, and not 2. Then we go with the logic that more is more.
@kielzanie WHO CARES??!! Obviously either of the options you gave me would end up with my baby dead so to me neither of them seems acceptable you ASKED what would i do so i told you no need to get angry at me this is just what i would do its not my problem you dont want to accept the possibilites. There thats my final answer its my OPINION for a reason im sorry if you dont agree with my different answer but its what i would do.
@drace I think math is ALL logic without feeling without comparing the people if there was one really good person who gave billions to charity each year and two hitmen who kill people for a living math would tell us iot is more logical to kill the one good person beacuse that would be the least amount of life loss, if we look at it with the persons demenor involved it would be a totally different outcome seeing as youd want to kill the two to save the one man's life who in turn might use his money to save others
MrMonkey3- Using the classic trolley problem we can narrow it down to two options. You are the driver of a trolley. The trolley rounds a bend and you see that you are heading right for five workers. You slam on the brakes, but alas, in the moment of need they fail. Then you notice a second track to the right, but it has one worker on it. None of the workers will be able to escape in time at the rate you are going. You are left with two choices kill the five workers, or turn and kill the one. What do you do?
Same situation, except the driver faints when he realizes the breaks fail and you are a bystander by the switch to change the rail the trolley is on. Do you kill the one or let the five die?
Same situation, except you aren't by the switch, you are by the tracks and have a large man next to you, you may let the five be run over or you may toss the man in the way of the trolley, his size will stop it saving the five men. Do you push him in the way?
Similar situation, except that you are one of the five passengers on the trolley and you ran up after the operator fainted. But instead he fainted because the trolley is about to go over a cliff. However, once again there is a track on the right hand side of the road leading to one worker unable to escape in time. Do you and the five passengers choose to take the plunge, or crush the worker?
And finally the hilarious alternative (its really funny, if you've studied philosophy).
@necromancer a-ha id ring the trolly bell to warn the one worker on the rail so that he gets off the rail and we can safely go that way. There are some flaws in the situation first how would the railmen NOT notice a trolly coming at them? Second if they were working on the rails the trolley shouldnt even be operating anyway.
See there are always more options some are just harder to think of than others.
@Drace- But its what you reasonably foresee as the future, from a Kantian morals in a vacuum stance. It is highly improbable that you would get so much good from slaying half of Earth's population.
@necormancer well if you DID kill half the population less people would need oil so the price would go down overpopulation wouldnt be a problem stuff like that. In my opinion these things arent worth all those lives.
MrMonkey- I ruled out one of those. "None of the workers will be able to escape in time at the rate you are going." Diligently working they might not realize the trolley is coming. An error in communication might have left them on the tracks, the trolley took a wrong turn earlier, or maybe the Mafia tied them onto the tracks :P.
Well, look at it this way. If YOU were that person, would you give YOUR life to save many?
I would. In a way, it's kind of playing Jesus.
Anyway, if personally killing one person would save a lot of people, I feel it's justified, because not doing it is like killing all those other people, so killing one person is easier.
But its what you reasonably foresee as the future, from a Kantian morals in a vacuum stance. It is highly improbable that you would get so much good from slaying half of Earth's population.
Not at all. We do what we see as the best choice, in the short run. You can save a human life but it can end up being Hitler.
Dropping the keys to your car can save your life, because it means you go on the road few seconds later, this means there are different cars around...and that drunk driver passed the area few seconds earlier from where you would have been.
@necromancer- Ok we'd have to be SO close so they wouldnt have any time to get off that they would've felt the rumbling for awhile. Aren't trolleys electricly powered anyway so if workers WERE working they would have had to turn the power off or they'd be dead already? If there were tied to the tracks i guess i'd have all the passengers help me ram one side of the trolly while we make a hard turn onto the other track so the trolly would tip off the tracks and not kill anyone..
@Shark- No, I like living, I wouldn't give my life up, especially if they just killed me without asking, that totally violates my autonomy, or any person who is killed at the benefit of others.
There is a distinction between killing people and letting them die.
@drace odds are if you DO save someone's life they'll look at life in a totally different way and appreciate it a lot more so the chances of someone you save being a hitler are pretty low, but the chances of someone who helps others are pretty high. Then of course they could always be in the middle odds are thought in the long run saving someone's life will be a good thing.
There is a distinction between killing people and letting them die.
Really? I dont think there is if you LET them die isnt it the same as killing them sure YOU werent the one who pulled the trigger (so to speak) but if you HAD helped they could have lived so you have in effect killed them by not doing anything
