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..
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?
man those are hard questions umm... it depends if there was no hope for me to be cured i would just let them kill me(it would be to much to ask anyone to kill themselves for someone they don't know) however, if there was any hope of me surviving, i would protect myself and tell them quarantine me somewhere instead.
no difficulty. lets say theirs 150 people on the plane. that one person would be in effect killing 150 people. if that 1 person dies 20 people are affected, his kids wife ect. if those people on board die 3,000 people are effected as opposed to alone 20. Not to mention people are going to think its a terrorist attack. mass chaos ensues because people would think the enemy has deadly bio-weapons. poltics would think the same, sending troops to whoever the american people think is the bad guy. 10,000 people are injured or killed from rioting. 30,000 troops die in the ensueing war. another 100,000 are injured. 143,000 people affected. same scenario. 2,860,000 people affected. all could have been stopped if some killed that infected person. i rest my case
You shouldn't have to kill the person. If you have the ability to kill some innocent person, you also have a way to contact him to tell him not to do whatever it is that will end the lives of all those other people. In these kinds of situations, there is always a better way than to kill that person.
Not to mention people are going to think its a terrorist attack. mass chaos ensues because people would think the enemy has deadly bio-weapons. poltics would think the same, sending troops to whoever the american people think is the bad guy. 10,000 people are injured or killed from rioting. 30,000 troops die in the ensueing war. another 100,000 are injured.
Interesting scenario but why would people think it was a terrorist attack? Then agin if it was a brazilian electrician; stupid metropolitan police.
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?
I would take out as many people with me as I could
That wouldn't be hard. ebola is an awful disease. Soem scientists did an experiment where amonkey with ebola was put ina cage at one side of a room and another healthy monkey was put in a cage like 30 metres away at the other end of the room. The healthy monkey was dead by the ned of the week. Then again this info is courtesy of Jeremy Clarkson so it is probably open to some interpretation.
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?
hit em with some M.A.D cold war tactics
i'd strap a bomb to my chest with a suicide switch so if they killed me the bomb would explode and kill them
i'd strap a bomb to my chest with a suicide switch so if they killed me the bomb would explode and kill them
now ur just being a terrorist and stops u from being innocent then the FBI or whatever will really shoot u in the head and kill u so thats not a really good idea
no, put the bomb switch in your mouth because when you die your jaw clamps shut and you release your bowels (poopy)
if you kill 1 innocent person to save 100 innocent? what better deal can you get?
would you kill 100 innocent people to save one? noo..
it depends on your definition of "innocent" really...i hate it when i keep thinking about how many things are defined by opinion and can't be straight facts because then there has to be an argument declaring which idea is better but the loser never really loses sight of his personal opinion only to repeat this process until they win...
now ur just being a terrorist and stops u from being innocent then the FBI or whatever will really shoot u in the head and kill u so thats not a really good idea
yeah but if they were to shoot me the bomb would explode and kill them along with anyone else in the vicinity
The original scenario has a simple solution. Strap said infected person to the fuselage with a bit of gaffer tape. Tell the pilot to fly at relatively low level say about 5000m (to stop said infected dying from lack of O2) and Bob's your uncle.
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?
For this scenario I would go with Deth. Remember kids, whenever you aren't sure, suicide is always the answer.
