lemmingllama Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 Is it right to kill one person in order to save the lives of many? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 That's a very good question... The way I see it is...If you are cornered and he will kill you in order to kill many. And you only had mere seconds to decide.With a gun in your face (for example). Then yes, I think killing him would be reasonable for self defence and the protection of others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemmingllama Posted October 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 What if you were a surgeon and if you killed one person for their organs, you could save ten others? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 I'd say if they were donated... then that was the persons choice.If it wasn't consented, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diablo Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 Man has been known to these kind of things in extreme situation. Even if any person says it wrong to kill one person in order to save the lives of many, but you won't know until you fall in real case scenario. Actually even I say that it'd be wrong to do that.Just to prove the point check out this link on Wikipedia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zolockit Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 Depending on the situation. As generic as an answer as that is, the question is also somewhat generic in a sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluenoser Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 Depending on the situation. As generic as an answer as that is, the question is also somewhat generic in a sense.Agreed! This question is too context specific, there are some times where the answer is an obvious yes, others where it is an obvious no and yet others again where it can be argued either way. This is illustrated by the reaction to one person's yes in the thread then being asked well what about a surgeon taking organs that will save the lives of many, that is one where depending on the consent issues involved goes either way, while shooting/sniping someone about to pull the trigger in a massacre is an obvious (I would hope for most people) yes. Personally I have a POV which does not permit hard and fast/absolute rules for anything in no small part because context is almost always a critical aspect and no simple/generic rule can simply cover all contexts in my observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemmingllama Posted October 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 Agreed! This question is too context specific, there are some times where the answer is an obvious yes, others where it is an obvious no and yet others again where it can be argued either way. This is illustrated by the reaction to one person's yes in the thread then being asked well what about a surgeon taking organs that will save the lives of many, that is one where depending on the consent issues involved goes either way, while shooting/sniping someone about to pull the trigger in a massacre is an obvious (I would hope for most people) yes. Personally I have a POV which does not permit hard and fast/absolute rules for anything in no small part because context is almost always a critical aspect and no simple/generic rule can simply cover all contexts in my observation.I understand that I am proposing generic questioning, but it is because it would be too much work to constantly recreate new scenarios in order to see if people believe that Ultilitarianism is correct or not. So if you want, create lots of scenarios as a focus group kind of thing and answer each, then take the more prevelant answer and post it here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
failedhornet Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 I cannot think of one realistic scenario in which the answer would be yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaoru Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 I cannot think of one realistic scenario in which the answer would be yesI share the exact same opinion. No one has the "right" to end any kind of life prematurely; what we have is the possibility; and because of this possibility we exercise it because we *can*, and then follow to explain the why. But regardless on the many reasons that are given to excuse this behaviour, I can tell you most of them are 100% wrong, unfocused and one-sided explanations. But we still do it, to each other and to every other kind of living species there is in our environment. Our laws provide the backbone for the ill-intent to keep spreading... we unfortunatly already live in a world where killing, in a generic sense, has become mundane; but to answer the initial question, no it isn't right, it is actually the worst kind of wrong there is in our world of today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
†Mute point Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 If we are talking about a known serial killer, then my answer would be yes, it is right to kill them to save the lives of future victims,If we're talking about some innocent guy who happens to be an organ match for dozens of people... I would still say no, because A: There are always more donors. and B: He hasn't hurt anyone. Self defense? Absolutely, if they are willing to use lethal force against you, or appear to be by such evidence as a brandished weapon, then morally, and legally, you are allowed to use lethal force against them. It is of course, preferred that you incapacitate rather than kill, but extreme measures are on occasion necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mintymilk Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 No one has the "right" to end any kind of life prematurely. We unfortunatly already live in a world where killing, in a generic sense, has become mundane; but to answer the initial question, no it isn't right, it is actually the worst kind of wrong there is in our world of today.Could not have expressed my thoughts any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaoru Posted October 17, 2011 Report Share Posted October 17, 2011 If we are talking about a known serial killer, then my answer would be yes, it is right to kill them to save the lives of future victims,.Even in that situation, if you look at it logically it doesn't make much sense; just because you execute a serial killer doesn't mean the people he/she killed will come back to life, instead you're actually giving peace to the killer because I reckon it's easier to die than to live incarcerated. I don't know if you guys know what happened in Norway, some right-wing psycho shot 69 people to death "just because" and only got i think 25 years in jail, which is the maximum penalty allowed in most european countries, and as terrible and unfair that may seem (especially to those closely involved) it's still better than just shooting him dead the day after; the eye for an eye policy is not well thought out theorem, even for revenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.