2006-08-16 02:07:35 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Psychology
the gun is an AR15
no, not a terrorist... just want to see what ppl say
2006-08-16 02:14:56 · update #1
-just answer the question, quit being so critical... of course it's hypothetical. it's a yes or no question
2006-08-16 02:16:46 · update #2
Your question is, do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
Yes, who could live with themselves if they didn't? Besides, if you didn't do it, it's likely someone with terminal cancer would take out a hit on you and have you killed for prolonging their suffering. Either way, you're screwed (and therefore life in prison is irrelevant). As to the 5 year old girl, the question is whether one child's life is worth preventing all cancer sickness and death from now to eternity (including plenty of children who die from cancer).
Obviously, you have to do it, there really is no real choice here, the question is, how brave are you, and can you make the choice that must be made to do the right thing?
Kill one person (and bring suffering to one family) through action, or kill millions (and bring suffering to millions more) through inaction?
2006-08-16 02:15:46 · answer #1 · answered by 006 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The chance that shooter will have to do life in prison means he has no authority to do the shooting. Does any single person can imagine that he/she is doing the world a favour by shooting a 5 year old? He/she needs the head examined. And if the state thinks, that is how cancer should be eradicated , then it will get someone else to do it . Or the state will force you do it , if it so feels. No question of doing it by self on free will.
2006-08-16 02:25:25 · answer #2 · answered by jaco 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
006 translated the question well. It is not a dumb question, contrary to many comments here. It's a very loaded ethical question. Such choices are happening at different levels all the time throughout history.
Personally I wouldn't shoot a five-year old girl.
If I imagine the situation where most of my family and friends are ill with cancer and I can save them by killing the child - I feel undescribably awful. But still I wouldn't kill the girl. That would be egotistical. To kill someone you don't know to stop the suffering of those you love (and your own, for you feel pain for them). Someone loves the girl as much as you do love your significant people.
If I had to kill the girl to save the humankind from cancer, I still wouldn't do it. Humankind is an abstraction. The girl is concrete and looking at me with her wide open brown eyes with long lashes, one hand in the mouth, the other holding a doll, the eyes smiling mischievously. Nope.
Let's continue looking for a remedy, folks.
2006-08-16 04:25:03 · answer #3 · answered by Z 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. The girl's life would be over in the blink of an eye, painless. The lives a at least tens of thousands would be allowed to go on freed of pain and given hope. If it were possibe, even if there was a hope of a cure in the future I'd shoot her in a hot second.
2006-08-16 02:16:57 · answer #4 · answered by W0LF 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The incident by no skill befell. it truly is an city fable. The regulations decision by technique of state, yet you frequently have a suitable to look after your self if someone invades your position. i doesn't shoot someone in that difficulty except that they had a firearm in hand or threatened me in a roundabout way. in the different case an over-zealous anti-gun prosecutor might want to cost you with a criminal crime (attack with a risky weapon). recognize the regulations on your state and make constructive you're in the right. and do not answer questions from the police till your criminal professional is present day.
2016-11-25 20:40:12 · answer #5 · answered by rinaldo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would I help anyone that more than likely brought tha **** on themselves. Hell no they should have taken better care of theirselves. And for the ones that have cancer that is inherited then I'm sorry the cancer will just have to eat the human race up because I wont kill a child for nothing.
2006-08-16 04:18:25 · answer #6 · answered by 420girl 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What if the next Hitler was going to get cancer, and, by doing this act, you ended up saving him?
People die. It's a fact of life.
2006-08-16 02:22:55 · answer #7 · answered by FozzieBear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
interesting one, well no
what is fated is fated, but you dont make it a purpose to heal by killing, it's wrong
anyways, there's still gotta be more sickness then cancer, and more sickness will come after cancer
there's a bird who gave golden eggs after a girl save him from a wound, the girl wanted more so she wounded the bird and then heal him, the bird died. this does not make sense right?
2006-08-16 02:21:45 · answer #8 · answered by yushiDa 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do people ask these ridiculous questions?? That's never going to happen so why try to goad people into making some sort of sadistic choice?
2006-08-16 02:14:04 · answer #9 · answered by Some Guy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you are sick!! Maybe someone should shoot you and do life in prison for a cure from all cancer.
2006-08-16 02:14:40 · answer #10 · answered by Sherri H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋