2006-09-26 15:16:17 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Other - Arts & Humanities
If they did it without being asked, and they knew the sacrifice they were making and for what reason, then a tentative yes.
If, however, that death was brought about by torture or abuse and the 'one versus many' equation was applied to justify it, then I would have to say that's not really a great step forward for civilization is it?
2006-09-26 15:23:44 · answer #1 · answered by Bart S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a catch22 question! It is NOT worth if , for saving a 100 lives I ( or you) have to die. But ...er...er.... it is certainly laudable if "someone" dies saving a humdred lives. Lihghter side apart, the one who decides to defy death to save a hundred is a great person. That is his decision and we cannot sit in judgement.
But, all of us have , in some measure, . that feeling in us. I would , for example give up everything including my life for my kid. But , Iam yet to graduate from that position to save some other. Selfish it may seem , it is the truth for me.
2006-09-26 15:33:39 · answer #2 · answered by YD 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In one of the Star Trac Movies before Spock dies "the need of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one." A very true statement. Do you not think that the lives that were given in the past Wars were not worth the freedoms we have.
2006-09-26 15:23:20 · answer #3 · answered by Andrew B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
temple makes some sturdy factors. hitler made MANY stupid military judgements and the U. S. changed into waiting to get extra sherman tanks to the front than germany ought to get 88mm shells to the front. yet... the 'end justifying the skill' is the excuse for each conflict. justification somewhat has little genuine international which skill, it really is continually the winner that has justification. 'moral' is 'universal definition' of perfect and incorrect, again continually defined through the winner. it changed into 'perfect' to our area and those that hostile nationalist socialism. it changed into 'incorrect' in case you supported the nazis. morality can by no skill be incorrect or perfect till one seems at it from one area of the different. the genuine question is did sacrificing some boys because of dud grenades income the outcome that those women human beings had to stay with after the conflict. they nevertheless bought their @$$es for nutrients and to feed their toddlers so a couple of minutes period answer looks no, yet contained in the destiny, the marshal plan rebuilt germany extra ideal than it began interior 20 years, so it changed into to the eventual sturdy. historians need 100 extra years earlier they could come to a decision if it changed into sturdy or undesirable. all solutions about morality is continually slanted from the position we are and from our conception structure.
2016-11-24 21:27:54 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it's a matter of life and/ or death because ultimately our mortality is NOT our sole decision to make, y' know?
That's up to our Creator, and He alone can decide whether we're to be "summoned" to return to Him someday...
Sometimes these issues of rescue & saving lives is beyond our control like if the individuals in question are suffering of terminal illness or are incapable of caring for themselves.
Such as a grand catastrophe or disaster, we all do what we can but it really is out of our hands, we just can't save everyone ~ it's not that we chose who to live or die. We save whoever we, ourselves are capable or to the best of our capability.
2006-09-26 15:29:08 · answer #5 · answered by ViRg() 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I do. It would be a hard decision to make, but a necessary one if hundreds of lives are in danger. One dead is a lot better than One Hundred.
2006-09-26 15:19:37 · answer #6 · answered by Shannifanni 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just make sure he's the most innocent of all . .. (bad joke)
My answer: Yes, the one who would actually kill the one man or woman to save hundreds.
2006-09-26 15:23:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends who the person is.
Depends how close you are to the hundreds...
Some people would sacrifice themselves, but I would pay hundreds of lives for the one of their kids or wife.
2006-09-26 15:25:27 · answer #8 · answered by linen 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its a difficult question when you would rather not have anyone have to die. But it is worth it to save many more lives.
2006-09-26 15:31:04 · answer #9 · answered by swaytz 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its a very tough question, but I would have to say yes. But would you rather be that one who died to save others, or the one who lived because someone else died for you?
2006-09-26 15:24:01 · answer #10 · answered by sexy34 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋