i think since im left with these crazy options and die in the end no matter what i chose, i would pick the 2 year old child, the least number to be killed. OMG!!! i feel so bad about this question...
guilty of murder? i think not!
2007-07-07 20:58:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by zheriamor 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would refuse to choose..
The crazy person is going to do what he or she is going to do regardless of what I do.. The best chance of catching the crazy person and preventing another "game" from being played out is to force the crazy person to do the killing instead of me.. If the crazy person isn't caught the "game" will likely be played again and again until the crazy person is caught.. Placing not 10 or 1 or 50 but potential 100's if not 1000's of lives at stake before the crazy person is caught..
Let him or her kill me and get on with the acts that will likely get him or her caught and taken off the streets ending the "game"..
2007-07-07 21:06:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by Diane (PFLAG) 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Situational ethics.
If you refuse to choose, then the act is entirely in the hands of the crazy person, and is essentially no different than if you had made a choice. In other words, your refusal to choose does not compel the murderer to act - he acts of his own accord, independent of your choice. There is no cause and effect, only an individual decision to carry out an atrocity.
2007-07-07 20:58:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by NONAME 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Personally I would choose to kill the 50 newborns. Here are my reasons:
Out of 10 people who are 40 years old, chances are at least 1 will not be saved, and I will condemn them to hell, whereas he may choose to be saved later on in his life.
The 2 year old child would be innocent in Gods eyes, and I will condemn it to heaven.
Out of the 50 newborns, around 10-20 will not be saved, and will be condemned to hell, whereas I choose now that they be condemned to heaven.
I may be guilty of murder, it may not be the right answer, but I believe personally it is the best. (I apologize in advance to the 50 newborns who will not live their earthly lives, but I will look foreward to seeing you in the presence of our eternal Father)
2007-07-07 21:15:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
1. I would not kill anyone.
2. The person who kills 50 babies would be the person guilty of murder, not me.
3. If they're going to kill me, no matter what, then I'll share my Jesus with them and, of course, try to talk them out of their sick plan.
4. When it's my time to die, I'm ready.
2007-07-07 21:03:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by scruffycat 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
kill myself. if i am going to be killed, then i would rather not take any innocent lives. of course, this is all now. if i were there, i cannot honestly say what i would do. life and death decisions bring out the worst and best of people. while i can say this here, being there is an entirely different matter and all i can say is i hope others and myself would never be in such a position.
2007-07-07 20:58:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by lalalala 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Kill the crazy person at the first opportunity.
2007-07-13 15:33:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by Lazerus JPA 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I could always just kill myself first taking away the chance of causing any other deaths.
2007-07-07 20:58:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by David F 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would not kill anyone. Sinning is not the last thing that I want to do before dying.
2007-07-07 20:57:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by Kevin E 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's all about choices. If I choose to kill, their blood will be on my hands. If I choose not to kill, their blood will be on the hands of the killer.
2007-07-07 20:59:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋