Is the death of a few worth the lives of many?

Question

what is better for everyone to suffer together or if this was the case the deaths of a few to ensure happiness to many?

Answer 1

This is a good question--it is "tricky" to answer. And part of the answer will depend on the moral philosophy that one adopts.

Utilitarians, for example, would probably go for the sacrifice of a few in order to benefit the whole. After all, the utilitarian principle suggests that the greatest good for the greatest number determines what is morally right. If sacrificing a few is necessary to bring about the greatest good, then that sacrifice is the moral thing to do.

However, this seems to violate human rights. By sacrificing the few, you are violating their human rights in order to benefit others. But isn't the nature of human rights such that they must be respected--even if ignoring them would benefit others? So if we recognize human rights, how in the world could we ever justify sacrificing anyone for the greater good?

Most deontological approaches (which provide a better moral foundation than consequentialist/teleological approaches) would balk at the idea of sacrificing a few for the many. One responder suggested going back in time to take out Hitler as an example. The difficulty is that this assumes that killing Hitler would be necessary to prevent the evil he pursued.

I'm afraid it would be hard to justify sacrificing a few for the many under sound moral principles. Surely there are other alternatives available to minimize the suffering without violating the human rights of individuals in the process.

Answer 2

Yes. The death of the few is worth the lives of the Many. Now...Who do you know who is truly wise and responsible enough to be allowed to make those kinds of decisions? Truman thought that the deaths caused by dropping Nuclear Bombs would ultimately save both Japanese and American lives that would have been lost in a long protracted campaign. Did he make the right choice?

Answer 3

I think this can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. In battle, it may be necessary to sacrifice a few to gain a decisive advantage against an enemy. In WW II, the city of Coventry in England was known to be a bombing target. This was learned through the interception and decryption of German messages. The city could have been warned, but the German spies would have reported this. It was considered more important to maintain teh secret of teh encryption equipment, so that more messages could be read. Hard decision, bu tthere you are.

Answer 4

Death is not worth the lives even one, this is because both are not related, or both are not in our hands. Even suicide cannot be committed as desired.

In Todays world the following may seems to be true but actually not: -
Death of more mass people may be worth the lives of few.

Answer 5

Rather vice versa:

“The great majority of men have no right to existence, but are a misfortune to higher men."
[Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 872.]

Answer 6

Would you kill Hitler if you made a time-machine that could go back to 1935 Germany.

Answer 7

such an irresponsible excuse. Very useful for those pricks whom made themselves anointed to calculate our lifes.

Answer 8

No not at all!