Question...

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Concrete_Angel, Jul 6, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Concrete_Angel

    Concrete_Angel Forum Buddy

    Somebody asked me this question the other day... They said

    Would you kill one Innocent person to save a dozen other people?

    What are your views on it? I myself am stumped.
     
  2. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Yar these sorts of questions are always troubling realities. Lesser of two evils from your own perspective. Personally, I think I'd struggle right up to the last moment with this. But I feel I'd lean with protecting the individual for a few reasons. The fact that innocent is the context in this situation means that the 12 are already in harms way, but the individual has no direct affiliation, except through my actions. Naturally, those 12 would die. However, there are times when people are in a position to alter a situation that will protect something/someone. They however are challenged with compromising the broadness of their/our values for the finite reality of life infront of them.

    We strive(atleast in western culture) to maintain that all life is as important as the rest, but situations like this emphasis that for some, situations are stronger than the individual. Which is indicative of "for the greater good", which has been used to justify great pains in the name of security, progression, and survival(among other things). Or more so a struggle to maintain our values of what we believe with the reality of losing life. Is it the quantity of life that is the pinnacle of importance, or is it what we attribute to each life and the situations/reality that arise in our existence. It's something to remember, that we are all going to die. We are all going to live for a certain time as who and what we are. So I suppose it's important to note, how are we going to survive. Our methods are just as important as the end result. Though.. that being said. Maintaining a firm belief in values like this can lead to extinction because of the inability to compromise. Though that can be preferable to breaking your own back and soul just to survive. In the end though, it is more difficult for someone who is put in charge of others lives. Sorta relates to policies, and our entire social structure. Do you make one group of people prosper, but neglect another? Similar concept I suppose. All very tough if almost impossible to answer for some I think. :(


    Anyhow, if this question intrigues you, there's similar ones that are mainstream that have lots of debate and articles if you want to look into it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

     
  3. AsphyxiateOnMisery

    AsphyxiateOnMisery Well-Known Member

    If someone I cared about was either that one person or part of that dozen, then I would either pick one or the other, respectively. Otherwise, no, I wouldn't be able to choose one or the other if they were all people I didn't know.
     
  4. CD110

    CD110 Well-Known Member

    What's an innocent person? Are all the others criminals? Regardless, no I wouldn't. Not my choice to make, and even if some higher power did give me the authority, I wouldn't want to choose. Individual rights trump the 'greater good', imo. We're not a hive mind and if we start sacrificing individuals we give in to savagery. Now if the person chose to sacrifice themselves (and they were a capable adult), that's a whole different story.
     
  5. Cicada 3301

    Cicada 3301 Staff Member Safety & Support SF Supporter

    The general form of the problem is this: There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. Unfortunately, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You do not have the ability to operate the lever in a way that would cause the trolley to derail without loss of life (for example, holding the lever in an intermediate position so that the trolley goes between the two sets of tracks, or pulling the lever after the front wheels pass the switch, but before the rear wheels do). You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?


    Ive seen this a lot in the past and someone once highlighted to me how option 2 is considered the lesser of two evils but in reality it is the option which is a direct result of your actions and so in some ways can be seen as murder or at least culpable homicide. By choosing option one you are simply a witness, option 2 makes you a murderer. Which i find quite interesting, but still think it is the lesser of two evils
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.