A question of morality (part 2)

[Richard]

Another question in morality...

[A18]

Is this one person about to die anyway?

[angus]

this is a much harder, and more interesting, question.  I have no idea what is moral, amoral, or immoral, in this case, but it's like one of those Star Trek queries.  sort of.  Morality is right, the greater right, assuming it is right to ensure life (which is still only an assumption), is to ensure the greater number of lives.  If all life is precious (we'll assume for the moment that this is true) then one thousand times precious is greater than one times precious.

But, I'll divorce myself from those naive assumptions and revert to my original position, which is that I'll only save the lives of people I know.  I'd imagine that if the thousand people were folks I know, and the one person wasn't, then yes.  But if the one person was someone I knew, and the thousand were strangers, then no.  Not the moral thing, but I am animal, like you, and not a god, and therefore I am a creature of instinct, not a creature of morality.

[Nym90]

I'll pick option 2. It depends on who the 1,000 people are, and whether killing the one person will indeed absolutely guarantee the continued survival of the 1,000, who otherwise will certainly die (I assume for the sake of argument you intended this to be the case, but it's not 100% clear).

[John Dibble]

No. I don't believe one is morally obliged to do so. How can one truly weigh the value of lives, anyways? Maybe it's just me, but I think it's dehumanizing to assign a numerical value to human life.

[dazzleman]

This is a tough one, but it is on this basic theory that war by a non-aggressive power is justified.

Large numbers of innocents were killed in World War II to stop Hitler from even greater evil.  Preventative war earlier would have produced far fewer killed for the same result.

So I tentatively vote yes, under the right circumstances.

[Gabu]

This is a tough one, but it is on this basic theory that war by a non-aggressive power is justified.

Large numbers of innocents were killed in World War II to stop Hitler from even greater evil.  Preventative war earlier would have produced far fewer killed for the same result.

So I tentatively vote yes, under the right circumstances.

I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that it's specified that the person who dies is innocent.  Hitler was not exactly innocent.

[Nym90]

This is a tough one, but it is on this basic theory that war by a non-aggressive power is justified.

Large numbers of innocents were killed in World War II to stop Hitler from even greater evil. Preventative war earlier would have produced far fewer killed for the same result.

So I tentatively vote yes, under the right circumstances.

I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that it's specified that the person who dies is innocent. Hitler was not exactly innocent.

Yeah, that's why I was uncertain. We don't know that the 1000 people are innocent, it could be 1000 murderers, in which case I certainly wouldn't kill one innocent person to save them. We don't know for sure who the 1000 people are, or anything about them.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Agreeed, it definitely depends on who the 1000 to be saved are and who the 1 to die is.  In most cases, I would consider it morally correct tio do kill the 1 in order to save the 1000.

[Gabu]

I'd say that, if everyone is innocent, then it'd be morally correct to kill the one person.  Semantics aside, if you know for a fact that it's either that person or 1000 people, you're effectively killing 1000 people if you don't.

[Nym90]

I agree with Ernest. If the 1000 people are chosen by a random number generator, I'd go with the 1000, as I feel that there are far more good people than bad in the world. I'd be uncomfortable about it, though, not knowing for certain. That's why I picked choice #2. If I knew for sure that the 1000 were all innocent, I'd save the 1000 for certain.

[opebo]

Is this one person about to die anyway?

We're all about to die anyway, soon enough.  Seriously you are not 'morally obligated' either to do anything nor are you proscribed from doing anything.  It is all just up to you.

[dazzleman]

This is a tough one, but it is on this basic theory that war by a non-aggressive power is justified.

Large numbers of innocents were killed in World War II to stop Hitler from even greater evil.  Preventative war earlier would have produced far fewer killed for the same result.

So I tentatively vote yes, under the right circumstances.

I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that it's specified that the person who dies is innocent.  Hitler was not exactly innocent.

Hitler wasn't innocent, but many innocent people died in the quest to get rid of him.  His death I don't even consider a casualty.

[MaC]

no.  My reasoning:  How would you actually know for sure that you would save those 1000 people by murdering the one person?  If someone holds the 1000 people ransom and demands you kill an innocent person to save them, how trustworthy is he?  Of course there are other reasons, murder is wrong, ect..

[Gabu]

no.  My reasoning:  How would you actually know for sure that you would save those 1000 people by murdering the one person?  If someone holds the 1000 people ransom and demands you kill an innocent person to save them, how trustworthy is he?  Of course there are other reasons, murder is wrong, ect..

The question is assuming that you do know for sure that you would save the 1000 people.  It's a completely different question if you don't.

[ian]

Option one.