2007-07-27 16:02:19 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
im so hungry right now i dont care
2007-07-27 16:04:54 · answer #1 · answered by That guy 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Without a doubt or hesitation, yes. Because you're talking fact: if you do this, world hunger will be ended. Cause, effect. (So there's no, "Oh, no of course not because killing one person wouldn't do anything!" The purpose of this speculation is imagining that it WOULD, lol!)
I'd want proof, of course, or a very reliable source telling me that it would be so, but I don't think any one life, innocent or not, would be worth more than those of the millions of people who are starving in the world (which, granted, I understand only in the abstract, sitting in my upper-middle-class life and playing on my laptop). It's not even really a humanitarian thing, for me-- if the world would quit starving, things would be a lot more convenient for everyone... unless the economy collapsed... I'm not sure how that would work, ending hunger, or how it would affect the market, lol.
But, yes! I would! The ends don't always justify the means, but pretty darned often they do.
2007-07-28 00:19:26 · answer #2 · answered by KJohnson 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a good question; it really forces you to make moral and value judgements. Would a hungry person want to receive food if he knew it meant the death of an innocent person? I don't know because I've never been that hungry. I think that I would allow myself to be murdered if I KNEW it would mean a permanent end to world hunger. My own life is worth less to me than the suffering of others. But I don't think I would commit a murder myself in order to end it.
2007-07-27 23:10:30 · answer #3 · answered by tahunajcw 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. What if that person held the answer to ending hunger in the world. What if he was a future heroic philosopher that had the idea that changed the world? That is how you must treat human beings. As ends in themselves...and not as mere means. Hunger in the world is due to corruption...and nothing else. Completely solvable. So no I would not do that.
2007-07-27 23:06:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Thats a tough one because by murdering the one innocent person you are saving the lives of many, but if you don't kill the innocent person then you are letting all the innocent people who are hungry die too
2007-07-27 23:06:37 · answer #5 · answered by alana5705 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. One death compared to the thousands, possibley millions of the equally innocent victims of starvation annually.
It is like cutting off an arm to save your life. Neither choice is pleasant, but you need to think long term.
2007-07-28 03:10:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's was what God did, and it wasn't an innocent person.. it was his SON. And he did because he loved the world.. i would, the world, living in terrible consequences. For every chicken wing there is to be given for free.. there's 12 other people living in starvation. Sacrifices should be made for the greater good. Sacrifices WILL be made for the greater good.
2007-07-27 23:19:27 · answer #7 · answered by twistedtattler 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'd seriously consider it. We throw away multitudes of innocent lives for much less important reasons - often for evil, foolish and nonsensical reasons, not to mention for no reason at all.
2007-07-28 01:30:44 · answer #8 · answered by Bruce M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, The needs of the many superscede the needs of one!
2007-07-27 23:12:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
2007-07-28 00:31:38 · answer #10 · answered by Tuna-San 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, sacrificing one person would not end world hunger. Watch the movie-Alive. At least they waited until someone was dead.
2007-07-27 23:06:35 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋