hypothetically say the only way to avert a disaster was to enact a terror and massacre, say there is massive overpopulation that is leading to enviromental catastrophy
the disaster would exceed the terror and massacre, but it would be no-one's "fault" - or no individuals fault
the terror on the other hand would be blood on your hands alone...
2007-06-19 17:08:53 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
its a hypothetical,
I am not rationalising a terrorist act, I am asking, in that situation, would you be able to take responsibility to do something terrible that needed to be done to save civilisation, or would you let civilisation die to avoid staining your hands with blood.
2007-06-19 17:16:36 · update #1
Oh please. Don't rationalize such a terrorist act. Only a loony would even consider something like that.
2007-06-19 17:12:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The earth is not even near over populated.
Besides that, you're starting with a false premise. Enacting a terror / massacre would never be the only way to avert a disaster. It's just not in the plan of God.
2007-06-20 00:14:57 · answer #2 · answered by seekingtoad 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This appears to be a variation on a classic ethics problem, the one with a train and a switch. If you do nothing, a crowd of people on the tracks will be killed by the train. If you flip the switch, you kill a baby in a carriage on the tracks. Star Trek faced this same type of problem and resolved it by saying, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, and then Spock dies. There is no "right" answer to this kind of problem. Both acts, doing nothing and letting a group be killed or flipping the switch and letting a baby be killed can be rationalized as the "right" answer. In my opinion, there is little justification for violence to resolve a problem, unless it is in self-defense. My only problem with the train problem is, what about the engineer on the train who has to experience either result?
2007-06-20 00:22:30 · answer #3 · answered by rowlfe 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Sounds a little like "Solyent Green". You can probably rent it at Blockbuster.
2007-06-20 00:42:04 · answer #4 · answered by Stand-up philosopher. It's good to be the King 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This sounds like a movie.
2007-06-20 00:12:49 · answer #5 · answered by sociald 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
there has to be another way and there is but this one would be much faster ,I'm not for it ...i choose the other way...if i understand you, your speaking about population control?that's a great question and i have to add it to my watch list ,thanks,oh and no ...
2007-06-20 00:18:42 · answer #6 · answered by Hana 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I'd move to Canada ...
2007-06-20 00:14:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋