if you were given the chance to end "hunger" in the world by killing an innocent person, would u take that chance???
2007-07-22 03:42:28 · 22 answers · asked by janelle g_7 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
No because a McDonald's could do it without off-ing someone.
2007-07-22 05:15:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure.
B/C even though that person has done nothing wrong he/she is no longer innocent. That person now has the blood of all the Hungry people in the world on his/her hands. So I would make that person innocent again by washing away this blood by putting a bullet to the head. Not to mention end world hunger. 2 for 1. Make an innocent person innocent again and end world hunger cant be a bad thing?
2007-07-22 05:58:51 · answer #2 · answered by Future 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Killing an innocent person could never possibly solve world hunger. If I were given that chance, I would question the sanity of the person who gave it to me.
2007-07-22 08:57:47 · answer #3 · answered by csbp029 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why would I have to kill an innocent person?
How would that end hunger?
How does this innocent person cause hunger in the world?
2007-07-22 03:48:05 · answer #4 · answered by Crazy M 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This a version of the question, "does the end justify the means." Is there a universal principle that would mitigate the taking of an innocent life to achieve an apparent good?
2007-07-22 04:43:32 · answer #5 · answered by Timaeus 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In the first place where would get an "innocent " person? Even if I start out to find one I can never. So, if the creator puts such a question , I know, he has done that purposely.
Hunger , thirst, disease, calamities are intended to balance out the universe.
2007-07-22 05:11:29 · answer #6 · answered by YD 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. i would. I see no reason why not especially here in the us. heck with all of the people we have found on death roe, that ended up being innocent, I am sure we have killed Innocent people before, what is one more? I think what you think of as innocent is a good question too.
2007-07-22 05:10:37 · answer #7 · answered by with4quarters 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. World hunger is not my problem. World hunger is the result of people making irresponsible decisions in their sexual lives. Ending world hunger only encourages people to continue behaviour that is not in their best interest or not in the best interest of their offspring.
If you cannot afford to feed yourself and your children, you might consider modifying your behaviour until resources are more plentiful. The animal kingdom is able to do this all of the time. In our "intelligence" we are unable to do this.
If killing an innocent would stop people from creating more and more poverty -- well, I might consider it.
2007-07-22 04:44:58 · answer #8 · answered by guru 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Definitely not! Once you take a life, you take everything that person has and everything they'll ever have. You ruin the lives of their wife and children, mother, father, siblings. There is always another way to end hunger without making others miserable in the process.
2007-07-22 05:11:53 · answer #9 · answered by tercentenary98 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Consider: Would you kill one to redeem another? The key word here is redeem. Why is someone's situation not their responsibility or the consequence of their people? If you redeemed them would it last? No, it is evil, never take from the innocent, leave it or change it yourself. Some people are inclined to sympathize others are snakes seeking that sympathy, be careful that evil does not come in guise of the good.
The world is our product, or God's will?
2007-07-22 05:40:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If there was certainty that the act would indeed cure all hunger (and not just temporarily), then I would have to do it. But as far as it is just a "chance to end 'hunger'", I'd have to pass.
The question actually simply asks if you lean toward utilitarian ethics (greatest good for the greatest number of people) or deontological ethics (act as if your act could be universalized). So, those who say "I would" are acting as good utilitarians, and those who say "no way" are merely being deontological.
2007-07-22 10:06:16 · answer #11 · answered by Think 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋