Is there a justifiable level wherein in lives can be traded? That, is would you take the lives to save 9?

Question

Many would agree that killing a busload of soldiers that were on the way to commit genocide is OK. But where do you draw the line?

Answer 1

It's about the greater good and it could be applied to most things. Would it better to kill one person or let many more die? Would you then be responsible for their others death if you did nothing? And would you be able to live with the guilt thereafter if you did nothing? But if it came to a choice of killing one person of them killing my loved ones then i would certainly kill that one person. However, i could not hoestly answer if it was unknown people about to be killed. I would like to think i could but, in reality, would I and would anyone else?

Answer 2

No simple answer and at the end of the day it rests with the soldier or police officer at the time.

This question is beset with quandries.

What if someone could shoot all the perpetraitors of 9/11 before the event and prevent it but would be unable to prove that was what they intended to do?

In some ways there are easier scenarios - IRA terrorists, Taliban, Al Quaida etc all love to kill innocent civilians because they are too big a cowards to go up against military or police officers. Far easier to justify a kill there.

Practically all military rules of engagement and definitely all western police rules of engagement are very tight about when shots can and cannot be fired.

Shoot to kill policy is often bandied about. This is total rubbish. Military and police officers are taught to fire to the central body mass. It is pointed out that in doing so they are likely to inflict a deadly wound so they should only fire if they absolutely have to.

Some specialist units such as SWAT and anti terrorist take head, throat or heart shots but these are highly trained personnel and and only go into action in the face of an extreme threat.

Many special forces exist world wide. Delta, Navy SEALS, SBS, SAS, GSG9, the list is endless. If they go into action it is always to save lives.

I think your question should really have been "is it (or could it ever be) justified for a law enforcement officer, member of the armed services, intelligence officer or other public protection agency official not to shot anyone threatening the life of another if they think that is likely to happen"!!!

Answer 3

your question reminded me of a story I have heard several times.
I have no idea if it's true or not.

Back before things were automated a man had a job with the railway. More than one line ran through and it was his job to make sure the switch was in the right position for each train that came through so the train would be on the right track.
His little boy love spending time with his father and would often accompany him. The father always warned him to stay off the tracks.
One day as the father was making sure the switch was in position because he knew it was almost time for a rush hour passenger train to come through he noticed his little son coming towards him down the railroad tracks. He began yelling and waving to him to get off the tracks because a train was coming. The child was too far away to hear him and just waved back.

The father considered pushing the switch over to the other track but he knew another passenger train coming towards him on that line was only about 10 minutes away. So if he threw the switch the two full trains would crash and many lives would surely be lost.
Crying his heart out, he left the switch where it was until the train passed and then threw the switch so the tracks would be right for the other train coming.

Answer 4

Hmm.

Well there's a justifiable limit to the amount of lives you can trade before you have paid too much for your winning. Its known as a Pyrrhic victory, where one side may have technically won, but now they have left themselves too weak to defend against other enemies, or their society now has to revert to an inferior standard of living.

While it is most closely associated with a military battle, the term is used by analogy in fields such as business, politics, law or sport to describe any similar struggle which is ruinous for the victor.

Answer 5

i don't think it's a matter of numbers. what is the reason for taking a life? Is it war? What Is at stake? What are the moral principles behind it? A human life is valuable but in war sometimes you lose sight of that, but I would have to say in the current war I would kill 1000 of the enemy to save one American or Brit.

i guess i didn't understand the question...if we are talking war..and you are talking about the value of lives theirs vs. yours, there is no scale..no way to balance. as I said I would kill as many of them as necessary to save the life of one of ours. does no one understand war?

david m you stated the following:
Shoot to kill policy is often bandied about. This is total rubbish. Military and police officers are taught to fire to the central body mass. It is pointed out that in doing so they are likely to inflict a deadly wound so they should only fire if they absolutely have to.
i'm not sure what military you have been in but it sure isn't any i have been in. your aim is to take out the enemy. period . end of sentence. no disclaimers needed. fire if they only have to? well if you're in the military and you're in war and the enemy is there you HAVE to.

Answer 6

You're not going to get a definite answer to this one. It all depends on the value one person places on human life.

Answer 7

I believe I would take lives and give up my own to save even one, if that were the duty I was sworn to uphold.

Answer 8

you have to weigh up the pros and cons of each situation on an individual basis even then your sometimes damned if you do damned if you dont. try being the one that had to make that decision its never easy

Answer 9

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Answer 10

So long as there are people dying, I don't think that it matters how many. We can't live without murder so why fight it? Kill everyone.