I recently asked if you guys would kill a baby to save a million people, or to save yourself (the scenario doesnt matter; there is no other choice than to kill the baby or let millions die)
Most people said they wouldnt kill the baby, because that would be murder. Wouldnt it be murder to let 1 million people die rather than just 1? Like i said before, Who these people are or why this is happening doesnt matter
2007-07-28 04:58:04 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Family & Relationships ➔ Singles & Dating
Some of those millions could be babys, you dont know. And sure, that one baby could be the one to save millions of others by curing some disease, but he is just as likely to be the next hitler. And this could be true for each one of the million people.
2007-07-28 05:05:49 · update #1
If you dont decide, everyone dies.
If you DID know the situation, if the baby was your child and the million were terrorists, like someone said, would that give you the right to change your decision? (regardless of what it may have been) Wouldnt that be playing god, rather than just being rational?
2007-07-28 05:11:28 · update #2
I think some people misunderstood this.
You already asked 'would you kill a baby to save a million people'. Even though some people are re-answering that question, I don't think you're asking the same thing again. Your real question here is "Wouldn't it be murder to let 1 million people die rather than just 1?"
My answer is NO and here's why..
If you 'passively' let 1 million people die, you could be charged as an ACCESSORY to murder. If you proactively murder one person, you ARE a murderer.
Because of the extent of each crime, being found guilty could still land you the same punishment...death.
That is, unless you are a soldier of a national army. They must answer your question before every battle....should I kill one person today to possibly save one million tomorrow.
2007-07-28 05:23:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I had an ethics class a few years ago and we discussed this topic. The story, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas", by Ursula Le Guin, is about this exact subject. Basically, you're asking if one is willing to subjugate one (or a few) if it benefits most of society or if one is willing to save one (or a few) even if that means society as a whole will suffer in some way.
The US as a whole basically believes that subjugating a few for the benefit of the American society is the answer. We want our produce cheap, so we hire illegals to pick the produce because they'll work for next to nothing. We want clothing and other items cheap, so we have these items made in factories in countries that have no workers' rights and often use young children as employees. We want lots of oil and we want it cheap, so we militarily get involved in nations that produce oil even though innocent people end up injured or dead. If you look at how politics work in the US, the majority rules, therefore, if it's good for the majority, it's the best thing to do.
At least I'm assuming this is what you're getting at. At any rate, someone's going to die with either option. I'd going with killing the one person (I think you're putting the one person as a baby to rile people up) since it causes less suffering and death in the long run.
2007-07-28 12:11:47 · answer #2 · answered by Sturm und Drang 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is an old question. It comes in many forms. There is a lot written. Go and read. The short answer is you are only responsible for the things you can control or influence. This means you don't kill the baby, that is within your control. The other factors are outside of your control. Keep in mind the above argument was made by the Nazis to kill six million people. They started with mental defectives and graduated to Jews. And it was all for the greater good of German society.
"The ends never justifies the means".
2007-07-28 12:04:04 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd save the million people. It's basically the same, except on one end, there's 1 innocent baby, and on the other, theres a million innocent people. Your going to end up killing somebody, and i'd rather it be one person than a million people.
But it depends who. I wouldn't kill a baby to save a million Nazis, or a million rapists, or a million terrorists.
I'd probably choose myself over the baby, as well. Because I like my life and I don't want to be lying in a coffin under the ground at 22 years old, where as the child hasn't seen life and won't miss it/understand it as much. That doesn't make it better, my opinion might change if I was in that situation.
Call me greedy =/
2007-07-28 12:02:56 · answer #4 · answered by Fahey 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
what am i saving them from?? I would save who I could at the given moment. I personally have saved a life. I happen to be at the right place and the right time for this person. SO would I kill a baby to save 1 million people? It's impossible. Because how would one baby effect 1 million people?? Your question does not make sense. Please explain more because I am just as warped in thinking weird things as you are!!
2007-07-28 12:11:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would be a decision everyone would hope never to have to make. But if needed I would definately say that the baby LIVES because you can't go and just murder the baby and there is no say that there will be other babies in with the millions of other people.
2007-07-28 18:42:46 · answer #6 · answered by jimmysgrl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
first off, this is a hypothetical question so it ain't real. don't ask someone what they'd do if you don't want to hear their real answer...after all that is what you wanna hear, right? secondly, the way the question is phrased is kill a baby to save a million people or yourself...and perhaps those who answered they wouldn't kill the baby were talking about not saving themselves....there is no reason to kill a baby instead of yourself. and forget the million people anyway! they're not in any real danger. bottom line is this: killing, no matter the scale, is not a good thing to do. any blood on your hands is not good. whether it be a baby's or a million people. if i had to chose, well, chances are i couldn't decide. i just wouldn't be able to play God like that.
2007-07-28 12:05:17 · answer #7 · answered by green eyed sole 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To sacrifice a life to save any amount of people as long as it's more than one should be somewhat of an easy choice. Considering that you haven't given us any situation and said details doesn't matter. Yes I would kill one person, doesn't matter what age, to save a million lives.
2007-07-28 12:05:40 · answer #8 · answered by alexht258 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it was to save millions, then yes. But to save myself, no. But of course it depends on the millions of people it would save as well. Would it save one million Taliban? Then no way, right? Would it save 1 million of diverse people? yes. 1 million is a lot of people compared to the life of one child. Would it have to be my child though? because that changes the internal feelings, but I still think the decision would be the same. As long as I died along with them.
2007-07-28 12:02:39 · answer #9 · answered by paganmom26 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hypothetical question from a hypothetical person. How about we save a million lives, and let the baby live as well?
2007-07-28 12:01:07 · answer #10 · answered by My Evil Twin 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋