Let say a 6 year old kid has the cure to a very lethal disease thats going to kill millions and millions of people..but the only way to get the cure is for the kid be dead.. woudl you kill the person to save millions from dying..??
2006-08-24 01:38:44 · 24 answers · asked by ili_luis_manzano_ili 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
No. Because if you say yes, you are going to have to draw a line somewhere. What is the magic number? How about 500,000 people, 1,000 people or even two people? Is it okay to kill one to save two?
2006-08-24 01:48:10 · answer #1 · answered by spot 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a hard question to answer! I may be wrong in many people's eyes but there's a reason I answered the way I did.
I would ask the kid first and let him know the situation. If he says no then it can't be done. The 6 million will have to die. I'm sure someone else would try though, then they would also have to kill me as well because I know. By turning my head, I would be letting it happen.
2006-08-24 01:47:01 · answer #2 · answered by madbaldscotsman 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes; of course, you'd have to.
The group I belong to has a story about this very sort of principle.
It's quite involved; but in short, it is about a man whose 4 year old child runs across a bridge to meet his Dad on the other side, but a train is coming.
Anyway, the father has to pull a lever to change a track for the train and allow the train to pass safely across.
If he doesn't, he will kill about 200 people who are on the train!
If he does his own son will be killed.
He has to choose that he loses his own son to save the 200 that would otherwise plunge to cerain death below!
Of course, the principle of the story is likened to the situation of the Father of us all, who had to offer His only Begotten in the flesh on behalf of us all - who would have otherwise died and been lost forever had He not done so.
To save millions, one has to choose the death of the one: Yes!
2006-08-24 01:54:16 · answer #3 · answered by dr c 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is a tough question. One life for the greater good of millions.. I would hate to be in that situation, but yes I would. Is it morally justifable to allow millions upon millions of lives to be exterminated? Then again, how can anyone kill a child?
2006-08-24 02:52:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It seems like out of X3. Anyway, if you read Star Trek novels, the Vulcans always said the 'good of the many over the good of the few or one.' Maybe the six year old is not consulted over the matter, but then what would he say?
2006-08-24 02:15:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
All I can wonder is why would somebody's government kill a million people to save no one?
2006-08-24 02:17:31 · answer #6 · answered by peacetrain 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say yes if it is going to kill millions and millions of people.
2006-08-24 01:45:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the world is overpopulated and we need to cut down on the numbers majorly. That would make a tiny dent. I wouldn't change my mind if all my family or friends or myself for that matter would die from this disease either.
2006-08-24 01:44:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm not a doctor, but i'm sure that there would be some way of taking the cure without killing the child...
i'd say yes, but i really have to be in the situation...
2006-08-24 04:16:51 · answer #9 · answered by Dizzie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
to answer your title-question I'd say i wouldn't. that innocent person can turn to be my child...so i would not have the power to do so.
but when a child is ill, he will live a time but after that he will have to die anyway, enough i try to make him stay alive for a long period. the best thing in this case would be that someone explains wisely to the child what's death and that every living creature will die anyway. sadly but true.
2006-08-24 01:47:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋