Moral Question

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by scarphe

this is hypothetical. and you know lives of people from first world nations are worht alot more than other lives.

Exactly. In a hypothetical situation everyone is the hero. In real life, there are a million things that people can do that are a lot easier than killing one's self or someone else to save 1000 lives, yet most people are not willing to make those sacrifices.

 

[crazyquik]

Originally Posted by odoreater

I voted No. Those thousand people are going to die one day one way or another anyway, and there blood will not be on my hands. The one guy's life who I take - his blood will be on my hands forever.

My system of morals does not impose upon me an obligation to save others from death, but it does impose upon me an obligation not to kill.


Btw - this doesn't mean that there aren't any circumstances under which I would off a motherfucker.

I like this

 

[emptym]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

If you mean "in the pursuit of saving the 1,000 and the 1" then I say we have a winner....
I do.

Originally Posted by odoreater

You guys are so full of ****. There are probably a million situations in the world right now where you might be able to save the lives of 1000 people doing less than sacrificing your own life or killing someone, yet you don't do that. The cost of one pair of Edward Greens can probably save the lives of 1000 people in Africa, yet I don't see you shipping the $1400 (or whatever EGs cost) to Africa for food and medicine.

Originally Posted by odoreater

Exactly. In a hypothetical situation everyone is the hero. In real life, there are a million things that people can do that are a lot easier than killing one's self or someone else to save 1000 lives, yet most people are not willing to make those sacrifices.
Great points.

 

[Piobaire]

Would donating the cost of a pair of EGs "save the lives" or merely "temporarily put off death in the short term" of these people? That's not just semantics, that's the fact of the matter many times.

 

[Agnacious]

Yes. Only if that one man was myself.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Would donating the cost of a pair of EGs "save the lives" or merely "temporarily put off death in the short term" of these people? That's not just semantics, that's the fact of the matter many times.

If you donated all the money you spend on stuff that is not essential to your own survival, you could probably keep more than 1000 people somewhere in the world alive in the long term.

The point still stands. There are guys in this thread saying "I would kill someone to save 1000 people" or "I would take my own life to save 1000 people" yet, in reality, they could save 1000 people, for the long haul, by doing much less than killing someone or taking their own life, yet they don't.

 

[Milhouse]

Here is a real scenario: a major accident happens. . . building collapses, tanker truck explodes, whatever.

You are an EMT or Paramedic responding to the emergency. . .

Do you spend your time trying to save the life of the one guy that just coded (cardiac arrest from the trauma). . . or do you assume he is dead soon anyway, and work on saving the many lives of the people less injured. . .?

This happens all the time.

In fact, there is a name for it: triage. It is a hard decision to make on the ground.

 

[Piobaire]

Originally Posted by odoreater

If you donated all the money you spend on stuff that is not essential to your own survival, you could probably keep more than 1000 people somewhere in the world alive in the long term.

If I was in to only having stuff essential to my survival, I'd not work and be able to donate nothing. However, this is a modification of your initial proposition, better known as an ad hoc.

 

[GQgeek]

depends who I like more, the one guy or the thousand.

 

[JLibourel]

I voted "no."

I think of Cardinal Newman's famous dictum to the effect that it has always been the Church's position that it would be better for the entire population of the world to die in agony than for one individual to commit the least venial sin.

That may be a bit extreme, but I would not take the sin of wilful murder on my head.

 

[Bhowie]

Originally Posted by JLibourel

I voted "no."

I think of Cardinal Newman's famous dictum to the effect that it has always been the Church's position that it would be better for the entire population of the world to die in agony than for one individual to commit the least venial sin.

That may be a bit extreme, but I would not take the sin of wilful murder on my head.

+1

 

[Dedalus]

I've always wanted to kill a man, just to watch him die.

 

[Henry Boogers]

I think the question, and subsequent responses ranging from the EG shoe comment to the self-analysis of why one was choosing not to kill the 1, is an interesting examination of the human conscious. It seems we feel morally tied to our actions disproportionately to the degree we are to our inactions.

There's no surprise in reading that less-than-profound sentence but what a terrible statement of humanity. We define ourselves by the riskless lives we lead rather than by the great deeds we have chosen not to perform? Such spineless self-preservation seems to be both supported by evolution and the church so who am I to rebel?

 

[Sherlockian]

Originally Posted by Dedalus

I've always wanted to kill a man, just to watch him die.

Why not shoot a man in Reno?

I spent a while reading John Stuart Mill, and watching Saving Private Ryan. After tossing around the thorny issue of whether I would kill one guy in Edward Greens (assuming that he'd already led a fulfilling life) to save a thousand square-toed, rubber-soled Walmart brogue wearers (their lives could only improve, no?) I was stuck in a moral deadlock.

Where is the option to vote "potato", damn you?

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

The other is that all you can control is what you do yourself.

Except that's not a valid viewpoint, given the way you defined the hypothetical.
Anyway, I agree with Huntsman's assessment.