Be killed. I won't have any blood on my hands. I'll defend myself against my attackers, but I refuse to be the attackee...
2006-11-22 15:23:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by Netta 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
The problem with this question is that the ultimate outcome is non-deterministic.
For instance, is it better to kill in the name of or is it better to be killed in the name of . You'd find that people's answers would vary greatly depending on what you put in as the ideal.
If you're attempting to look at this from a purely logical perspective, then the answer would be neither. Either answer you chose, you're removing a productive member of society: you or the person that is killed. The outcome of either action is unpredictable as well. For instance, you could have come up with the key to nuclear fusion had you not be killed. Simultaneously, the person who you killed could have been the person to bring world peace.
So at best, from a logical standpoint, either choice is equally bad. At worst, the question is non-deterministic because there is no way to tell whether the action is overall beneficial or detrimental.
You run into the same problem from the moralistic standpoint (depending on which cultures morality your using). The prevalent one in this country is that killing is wrong. However, what happens if the person you killed would eventually become the next hitler?
This is a good question to gauge what people believe in. I'm sure many people will post answers to this question, but most will be posting based on their beliefs.
The true answer to this question is that it is unknowable. It is impossible to tell the effects your death or someone else's death will have on the future.
Even in cases where it seems clear cut (killing a terrorist for example), you have no idea that the person you just killed would not have fathered a child that saw all the blood and carnage and decided to work for peace in the Middle East. At the same time, that terrorist could have become a future suicide bomber that goes into a daycare and blows himself up.
That's the beauty of Chaos Theory. :)
~X~
2006-11-22 23:53:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by X 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
It depends upon the circumstances.
In general, survival is paramount, so if an aggressor attacks you and you fear for your life, obviously your right to survive supercedes theirs.
However, if the aggressor faces you with a choice to kill another innocent or be killed, you can't become the weapon of the aggressor.
It just isn't that simple.
2006-11-22 23:40:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by open4one 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Kill. But it would depend on whom I would have to kill. Someone trying to kill me, hand me the gun. Someone I love, I would try to stop them, but I couldn't kill them.
If I had no feelings for the person, I could live with the blood on my hands. If he tried to kill me and succeeded, I would at least take them with me.
2006-11-22 23:56:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Greg 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
It's not only better to kill that be killed, it's much easier on the digestive system.
2006-11-23 00:11:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
This really doesn't require much thought. It's better to kill. We are human and have survival instincts. At least I do.
2006-11-22 23:19:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Chula 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
You are confronted by a person who sticks a gun in your face .
He is obviously going to kill you. What do you do.
You have two choices. Die or kill the sob.
You choose.
2006-11-22 23:21:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by hunterentertainment 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
To kill or not be killed. I don't know. Probably to be killed, since your an innocent person.
2006-11-22 23:30:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Kill. Didn't have to think long and hard about that one.
It's instinctive, guys. It's called self-preservation.
2006-11-22 23:54:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I would have to say to be killed. I would never be able to kill someone and live with it.
2006-11-22 23:33:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by r_finewood 4
·
0⤊
3⤋