posted
In your opinion, do you think you would kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of 2 innocent people? 10? 100?
Here's some scenarios:
A train, carrying a few hundred people is headed towards a break in the tracks. Would you pull a lever to switch it to another track if a person was standing on that track, with no way to get off? (say his shoelace is caught on the rail.) Or would you just let whatever happen happen in order to keep your hands clean? -------------------- You enter a room with 11 people tied up. A terrorist walks up to you and hands you a gun and tells you that if you don't kill the 11th person, he will kill the other 10. Would you do it? Or would you refuse and say that it's not your fault what this man decides to do? (And just because I know someone's going to say this, pretend you cannot shoot the terrorist)
Do you think it is ever moral to kill someone to save many more people's lives? Would your oppinion change if you had to kill them your self?
Posts: 9 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it can be moral, but is ambiguous enough that I would find no moral fault in either choice. I don't know what I would choose.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It really depends on the situation. With the train I would probably pull the lever. With the terrorist I wouldn't even consider doing it.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd probably pull the lever and shoot the 11th person. There's really no logical reason not to take the path of least death in both scenarios. Keeping your own hand clean at the expense of other people's lives seems kind of selfish.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would shoot whomever is posting this question (worded exactly the same) on other boards with a ethics-increasing gun, as he/she should be doing his/her own homework, instead of just mining for answers.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
