Would you (or do you at least agree with someone who would) kill a person that you know for certain was going to kill hundreds, maybe thousands of other innocent people? Even if it was just dozens of people? Well you get the idea, but as big a deal as taking someone's life is, the loss of multiple lives is far more tragic, let alone if they mean no harm to others.

 

I would say it depends on the situation and the condition.



Do I agree with a police officer shooting a suspect that has killed and poses an immediate threat to kill others? Certainly.

Do I think it is justified to kill Saddam Hussein / Osama Bin Laden knowing how many they have killed, to ensure no more deaths? Certainly.



Your question is very broad and open to interpretation. Do you have something specific you were thinking about when you typed it? What are YOUR ideas?

 

It depends, who knows what I'd do in real life.



Now. If you'd kill one person to save, say, ten people.

Would you kill two people to save twenty?

What about ten people to save a hundred?



Considering the population of the world is around 7 billion, would you kill the entire population of the US, Russia, and Indonesia - to save the rest of the world?



Or does the ratio change as the numbers get bigger... do you have an upper limit of how many good people you could kill, regardless of the results?

 

I would kill an intruder in my home to prevent him and his cronies from coming back and killing my family.



The situation warrants itself more than "the needs of the many..." mindset.

 

It is a very interesting thought....



What if it was a very nice person that everyone loved, but it would save 1000. What if it was your child, to save a million? I assume you mean it in a sacrificial sence like that?



I don't think you mean kill/eliminate a threat that is intending to kill otheres.



What if it was random, one person a year is killed to save a thousand. I think you would find more against this, but that is because they are worried about themselves being chosen. Kind of like Hunger Games...though you had (quite unfair/biased) chance to live, it was basically random.



Where can you/do you draw the line in any (non-threat type) scenarios? Is it 1:2, 1:100, 1:1000 ect.?



What if someone puts a gun in your hand and tells you to shoot this one person, or they will kill 1000 people? Or the Batman Begins scenario with the two boats and th bomb?



Abotion is a touchy subject, and some don't believe that it is human until birth (that argument is a seperate topic). But many believe it is a human, they just justify it by saying, it will save that child a hard time, or save the adults money or whatever justificaiton they have is what they focus on, and refuse to take responsibility for their actions. Embriotic stem cells are humans, but they are killed just to grow and arm, or possibly save a live. Is that right?



What if some guy has some cell or something that you have to kill him to use, but it oculd save many? You say yes, but then what happens when you have this cell now?



Hiroshima the president decided it was worth killing 50k+ people (or how ever many died then/soon/later from it) to save millions from a pro-longed war. It is a tough choice, but he was the one that made that descions, and must face responsibility for those acitons. Though this was innocent people...war is different. You 'agree' to live in a country, you are part of that country, you can leav any time you want (well most countries)... At a time of war, you are basically in agreeance to kill and/or conquier by any means necessary. The only time a non-chemical or biological agreement is made is because you don't want that done against you either. Well, they didn't have nukes, we did, so we used it. If htye did like the USSR, then we wouldn't have, due ot MAD. So then you actions aren't not used because of compassion, rather fear for yourself. So war is hell, it sucks, but it is an agreed upon thing, so you can't exaclty count that one human deciding they have a more of a right to live than the other. Back in the day, you were part of a kindom, you fought and stood by your king, if your king was weak, you left, fform fear of dying in battle. Though if you liked him that much, you would stand and fight for him. So in a way, though civilians generally aren't exaclty 'part' or the war, they kind of are. They just aren't that much of a stretegic advantage in targeting them, so they generally aren't. Or again through mutual fear, if you leave their alone, they should leave your alone.



I don't think we should just randomly go kill Osama or Kim Jung or any of those, with out first declaring war on them. Not letting someone know of your intentions and giving them an opportunity to run and hide and or try to kill you back isn't right and is cowardly IMO. Essentially a 'war-like' agreement. And anyone under that person aware of this war needs to claim allegiance or disown or they are now a potential target.





Bottom line IMO, is you are responsible for your actions, the ends don't justify the means. If you kill someone, the blood is on your head/hands, I don't have how many it may or may not have saved. Quit trying to push the blame or justify it by claiming the good that it did.



I don't think any human has the right to determine another human is less valuable then they deem worthy of life or more worthy than others lives. If 1 could save a thousand, and you believe in that? Then put your head on the chopping block. If someone wants to volunteer, good for them, but that is their desicion, no one else has that right to decide for them.

 

No.





Terrorists clearly have their reasons and root causes.



Therefore, I think they should not be executed but instead detained, jailed, questioned, and used unofficially (as mere connections and not official diplomatic representatives) to reason with the enemy in order to get answers and solve the problems of the world instead of eliminating them to enrage and thrust endless and unstoppable radical-Islamic movement that kills an average of 6 NATO soldiers per day that obviously nobody hears about.



The government makes you believe that they can dent the enemy so they can win your trust through money. I think capturing Hussein and Osama was a golden opportunity to initiate some kind of world peace and bridge the boundaries and differences of the globe.



When we leave Iraq and Afghanistan, Islamic radicalism will reform and there will be severe consequences both here and abroad.



Meanwhile, mental psycho and sociopaths are a different, almost helpless scenario. These are sick people that either were born like that or had troubled youths. Nothing can be done about them.

 

If I can add another question, what do you think about the scenario that movies like to portray that goes something like this:

Terrorist - "if you don't _____________ (fill in the blank - give me xyz, do abc, kill so-and-so), then these innocent people are going to die." The terrorist is the one actually killing the people, but because you don't comply with his wishes, he'll kill them. He keeps telling you their blood will be on your hands because you have the power to stop it.



In my opinion, the blood is 100% on his hands. He's the one pulling the trigger, but just trying to make you feel guilty for it. I think that would be my response to the batman thing. Just because you're going to kill people, I'm not going to kill someone to prevent your from killing more. Thoughts?

 

Depends on how rational the terrorist is, I guess. If they know what's good, they'll probably just release one or two hostages for every demand you meet. If it's some crazy d00d frothing at the mouth, then the hostages are probably dead anyway. But organised or political kidnappers tend to view it more as a transaction.



Interesting point about not killing Saddam from HKC, never thought of it that way.

 

100% agree, it is your actions. How do you know the police aren't going to show up and kill the guy before he gets a chance to? How do you know he won't change his mind last minute after hearing a plea? If you kill them, you kill them, it is 100% on your hands. Though I can't think of too many real cases of this. That was kind of what I was talking about with the Batman boats scenario.