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..
hmm...i was hoping it wouldnt linger on the whole Ebola thing... but it all does make sense...do u guys think you answer would change if you were the innocent person being killed... 0.o
well because this innocent person may be in the way of someone or something that could kill or harm a more greater amount of people.. so you either kill that innocent person to get to the actual threat or just say to yourself that that one life is to important...
that maybe helped...but probably not...i tried tho
I wouldn't kill him I would just get him arested of something cause if he was in jail then how could he/she kill anybody???
By infecting them with a deadly illness. Read the OP, it stands right there... So by arresting him, you are just spreading the disease even more.
But enough of that: Problem: You can choose to save one person, and thereby kill a group of other people or save the group, by killing the one person. Both the person and the group have done nothing wrong, but happen to create this conflict. There is only two choices: Killing one (saving the group) or saving one (killing the group) The method of the killing is indirect, aka like pushing a button. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
There is no such option:P This is in general a problem that is hardly ever looked upon, because it seem to be an impossible choice. Experiements have been done and shows that if people are put up with these two choices, some people would kill the person, while most would do nothing (if I remember correctly > >..) If people are out up with the choices, and only have an indirect fault in the death of the person, more people will kill the one person, and save the group.
I wouldn't stand killing somebody. I would end suiciding. And also i would not be affected by the death of the group, because i don't know any of them. If there would be a way tough to make another people than me kill, I would probably manipulate him doing that. Maybe my ethics are wrong, but this is what i think. But, if i know someone in the group that would die i would probably protect him by killing that individual, and won't suicide because i saved a life i know. Another thing. If im the member of the group that would die, i would fastly and before any one else kill the troublemaker with my own hands, and don't even care im a criminal. I usually tend to be a very self-defensive person.
a single observation: if somebody infected with Ebola would infect a group, BOTH the group and him would die, not only the group. This is not a good example and in this case the most LOGIC, SENSIBLE and RATIONAL thing would be to kill him because he will soon die anyway.
of course! If you kill one innocent to save other semi-innocents, I find that to be morally right. Plus, if an innocent really is innocent, they would be happy to oblige.
I would always choose the lesser evil. I'm pretty sure I would be able to kill someone indirectly, though I don't know about directly.
Another thing; what would you do if you were the the person who was infected? Would you claim self-defense and kill whoever tried to kill you? Would you commit suicide? Would you let someone kill you?
