Well basically that, what do you think..is it right to kill 1 or 2 innocents people to save the lives of hundreds more..??
here's a scenario-- A Carrier of an airborne strain of Ebola is about to board a plane where he will share the same stale air with scores of strangers. Do you allow him to risk infecting fellow passengers or do you kill him if that is the only way to prevent him from getting on the flight?
...oohh and..would this be put here in world event, politics, religion, etc...i wasnt really sure..
As for the scenario, from what I have read, Ebola is ridiculously contagious so the people would proably be infected any way just sat in the terminal with him. However you must assume they are not yet infected. I am afraid I am having difficulty answering. The actual action of killing some one is huge and very significant. Whereas allowing the deaths of others is less so. But so many more people would be affected. I think I would want to kill him but I doubt I could, like you say he is innocent. If it was "if you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he rose to power" it would be different.
Let me tell you this: It depends on whether or not you have to do it with your own hands. There is a larger group of people, who would kill one to save more, if they is not directly responsible for the death of the one person.
Like: If you have to stop a train, and the only way is to shove an increbibly fat person onto the trail, not many would do it. If you are in the control room of the trail-system, and have to pull or push something to change the path of the train, more people would do it.
People are not as affected, if they are not directly responsible for the death of someone, and therefore capable of doing stuff they would not normally do.
wow this is hard. personally i would put him in a plastic bubble and lock him in the cargo bay with food water and all the nesecities. i wouldnt kill him. i would just keep him away from the other passengers. "if you have a better one then it would be best to use that one..."
there are to rails there is a baby on one of them and a group of people on the other. the train is headed to the group of people. would it be right to diver the train and kill the one baby and save the group of let the group die and save the baby? Also, the train is moving really fast so theres no chance u can save both the group and the baby. Also the group is both blind and deaf, so they can see or here the train. so is it right to divert the train and kill one baby and save the group of blind and deaf people or kill the baby and save the group.
No offence to blind and deaf people but I think the baby would have a better chance to live a "normal" life. (not being pro-euthanasia). Plus age factors into it the baby has more of its life ahead.
In psychology there is the idea of the "diffusion of responsibility". Where in an emergency people are less likely to act if there are more people around. This leads to the cost/reward system of beaviour. In a situation your brain evaluates the costs of helping (any danger, harm or embaressment) against the rewards of helpin (praise, gratitude etc) If the brain feels the costs are to high it will not feel a need to help as much. It will find ways to justify this by, for example, thinking of the harm to yourself or using the diffusion of responsibility to say someone else will help or no one else is helping why should you.
I am studying to be one hopefully. I am doing it at A level (Advanced Level General Certificate of Education). And I hope to do it at university assuming I'm not able to do physic.
Well, on the other hand, if you do not do anything, the other people will be saving the life of the one person > >
If I remember correctly, there is two parts of the brain connected to these kinds of choices, one active if you have the option to push a button/indirectly choose, and the other if you directly have to choose. (Popular Science magazine in Danish: illvid.dk)
