ForumsWEPRIs Killing Someone to Protect a Person Morally Acceptable?

46 23027
apldeap123
offline
apldeap123
1,708 posts
Farmer

Imagine this situation: You are walking in the park with your wife and a masked man comes up to your wife. He threatens to kill both of you unless your wife lets him have sex with her.

Is it morally acceptable to kill a person in order to save the life of another man?

  • 46 Replies
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,557 posts
Jester

They're bound to die someday, and might as well let the other five live their lives longer while helping those with the higher probability of dying.


I'm with Hahiha on this bit. My choice would depend entirely on the situation. If I had a reasonable belief that they would all be rescued in a short period of time, giving the magic pebble to the sickest person would have the potential to save the most lives.
Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
241 posts
Constable

Wait a second here. if i AM a possible psychopath, would that make my views pretty irrelevant in my last post, because i'm in the minority? maybe i shouldn't comment after all

Jacen96
offline
Jacen96
3,087 posts
Bard

hmm, looks like people interpreted the pebble problem in a different manner than me.

I interpreted it that without the pebble, the people will die, the lesser sickness of the five simply meant they needed less pebble.

idk what I would do if survival was still reliant on help arriving at an unknown time.

~~~Darth Caedus

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

Then there's the idea of altruism in it's most extreme form. Imagine two people are tied to a train track. The train will hit and kill them unless you push a fat man in front of the train to stop it. He will, of, course die. (You can't jump yourself, you don't have enough mass to make a difference.) In this case more people survive if you yourself become a murderer. On the other hand, if you don't kill the fat man, you will have, by inaction, allowed the deaths of a greater number of people. What do you do? (Lets imagine the police don't come for you)

In this specific example, other than purely physical questions about whether this makes any sense, I must say that there is no morally right or wrong way to act, seen from outside. In any case there will be at least one death, none of the "options" are really black or white.

Although seen from the person who has to "decide", it does make a difference. Because if you do nothing, you cannot be blamed for anything that happened. If you do something, you saved two lives, but you became a murderer in the process.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,829 posts
Duke

Just thought I'd add some clarification, as there are actually two distinct (but both very interesting) questions on the table. The first is basically the thread title - is it permissible to kill someone in order to save someone else (or a group of people).
But there is a second question lurking in the background that the Trolley Problem and Health Pebble are meant to bring out: Is killing as such worse than letting die?
So, take the Trolley problem. In its standard form, you have a trolley that's headed towards 5 people on a track. If you do nothing, those people will die, so the thought here is that you would be letting them die. But you can divert the trolley onto a different track with just 1 person. In this case, it seems that you are actively killing someone.

The upshot is that your answer might just hinge on one of these questions. So if I think that it's better to let die than to kill, then I won't divert the trolley - nor would I kill someone to save someone else.
Or I might think that killing a person in order to save another is just inconsistent or outright morally unacceptable for some other reason (presumably because of whatever ethical system I accept).

The Health Pebble is meant to remove the killing/letting die distinction as it seems that no matter what you do, you're not actively killing anyone. You're just letting them die. On that note:

I interpreted it that without the pebble, the people will die, the lesser sickness of the five simply meant they needed less pebble.


This is the right interpretation. They're all going to die without the pebble, but each of the 5 just needs less of the pebble than the 1.

It's also important to stay true to the thought experiment. The possibility of rescue or the possibility that the health pebble won't actually do its job are irrelevant considerations - at least as far as the thought experiment is concerned.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,254 posts
Regent

So in the end it's just number games which have no relevance to reality?

jorgedbp96
offline
jorgedbp96
4 posts
Shepherd

For the Trolley problem: if they dont get out of the track, they are too dumb to live.

For the pebble problem: you save 5 and let 1 die or save 1 and let 5 die.
In my opinion use it for the greater good or the lesser of two evils saving the 5.

Jefferysinspiration
offline
Jefferysinspiration
3,168 posts
Farmer

In response to the main question, I think given the circumstances, i'd kill to protect those I love. If it was a case of them or the perp living, why would i pick someone i don't know over someone i love? If there was a way to withhold them without killing them, obviously that would be the answer.

Is killing as such worse than letting die?

I think this also depends on the circumstances. I mean, If someone falls in the street we usually laugh and walk on, but things don't always appear as they are. What if that person ended up breaking their back and we just walked on by? Or sometimes if an accident happens, you may feel helpless without knowledge on how to help them, so you dismiss the possibility the tiniest thing you could do would help, so don't bother.

I think actively killing is perhaps above letting someone die. However both would be on your conscience for sure.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,444 posts
Jester

For the Trolley problem: if they dont get out of the track, they are too dumb to live.

A variant around that issue is that there are tight tunnels or canyon walls along both tracks, making it impossible to avoid.
samiel
offline
samiel
421 posts
Shepherd

Sorry I'm sure someone already brought it up but this question is pretty open ended. I will create two fake cenarios that I believe will make my point.

I find an innocent man being robbed by large men. One with a crowbar and the other with a baseball bat. The man with the crowbar rears his weapon for a fatal blow but shoot him killing him instantly.The other man runs away and the victim thanks me as I call an ambulance.

I find a man being robbed and beaten similair to the but this man draws a gun to defend himself and is about to deliver a fatal. I shoot the beaten man to save the robber.

In both cases I killed a man to save another man but one seemed righteos and the other horrible. Please don't ask why those guys were just walking around with a gun, I think someone will try to disect it and miss the point so please just don't.

samiel
offline
samiel
421 posts
Shepherd

Sorry for double posting but I had a neat thought to sort of corrupt the pebble debate further more what if one of the five is a murderer who kills everyone and now instead of 6 living at the death of one only one survives ( I decided to count the decesion maker because it makes sense with this little tidbit) Now if the one gets it then two people survive. Some times you just can't win you can only do your best.

thepyro222
offline
thepyro222
2,151 posts
Peasant

Everyone's moral compass is going to be different, so I am answering the OP from my moral compass.

Short answer: Yes, it is morally acceptable to kill a person if your life, or someone else's life is in danger of becoming non- existent.
For the particular scenario, no ones' life is being threatened, therefore it is not necessary to end this person's life. What you should do is try to pin the person or otherwise incapacitate him, instead of killing him, or disarm the knife. Then wait for the police to get there and do their jobs.

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,815 posts
Jester

For the Trolley problem: if they dont get out of the track, they are too dumb to live.

Imagine they are trapped and think it over.

Along with the trolley problem, there is the idea of the 5 people trapped on the track, and one overtly large man with you on a bridge over the track watching the trolley barrel forward. You have a lever which will open a trapdoor causing the man to fall in front of the trolley, effectively stopping it and saving the 5 men, but killing him.
The difference between this one and the latter version is the more direct impact you have in the situation. Before, you are merely changing the trolley's direction, but in this version you drop a man to his death.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,444 posts
Jester

Before, you are merely changing the trolley's direction, but in this version you drop a man to his death.

You're merely opening a door. I'd consider them to be at the same level of causation. In both cases, you know that an individual's death would be a consequence of your actions.
R1a2z3e4
offline
R1a2z3e4
116 posts
Shepherd

Yes, one person kill can save many lives.

Showing 16-30 of 46