The scenario:
You have no idea who the perosn you are to murder is, only that it will definitely save the lives of 10 law abiding citizens. You will not be sent to prison or have any other repercusions for the action.
If not 10, then how many people would you murder for?
2?
30?
5,000?
None under any circumstances?
Please also state your belief system with your answer.
2007-10-01 02:11:43 · 27 answers · asked by Golgi Apparatus 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Research has shown that most people agree with the logic of this, but are unable to carry it out because of deep instinctive revulsion against murder.
I doubt I'd be different.
CD
2007-10-01 02:16:54 · answer #1 · answered by Super Atheist 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think if it were set up as such an impersonal arbitrary situation I would have trouble. I mean how do I know that the information I have (that my killing this person will save 10 people) is true? Must I trust some outside source? Do I trust this source? Could this be a lie? Does another human have the ability and right to make a call like this?
On the other hand if I came home and found a man about to plunge and knife in my child or husband and the only way to be sure to save them would be to shoot them with a gun I had access to, I don't think I would hestitate too much. If I had good aim I MIGHT aim at a nonlethal area of the body but if there were any question in my mind that might put my loved one at risk then they would be toast. I think if I were in a situation of immediate and obvious cause and effect like this (war or witnessing a crime in action) then I might very well consider the "right" thing to take the one person's life. Right here just being the lesser of two horrible wrongs. I don't believe in God so that makes me an atheist, I consider myself a humanist.
2007-10-01 09:23:23 · answer #2 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a concept that is covered in the Scientology religion. The answer lies is what is the greatest good for the greatest number. How do you gauge a number when you already know that any form of murder isn't good? If a cure kills 10 but saves 10,000, it is pretty successful. If you are in a plane hijacked by a terrorist and he wants to kill all 300 aboard, would you kill the terrorist for the sake of 300, well, it would be the greatest good. But then again, why not find a way not to kill the man in the process, instead get him successfully arrested, provided the lives of the 300 aboard aren't endangered, as you try to save the world.
2007-10-01 09:20:10 · answer #3 · answered by HeyNowBrownCow 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
None under any circumstances..
The ends do not justify the means. Murder is murder. The person to be murdered is just as holy and precious in the eyes of God as the 10 people who will not be killed.
However, if a single person is killing others or trying to kill others and there is no other way of stopping that person, then taking his or her life is morally acceptable.
2007-10-01 09:22:24 · answer #4 · answered by Sldgman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If it were my job to protect citizens (like a cop), I would do what my job required me to do and kill the other person. I would, however question the orders and ask if there were a way around it. Sometimes just wounding someone or incapacitating them in another way would be just as effective.
If someone were in my presence physically threatening my family and myself; and the only way I can figure out to save them is to hurt and possibly kill that threatening individual, I would do it.
As a Christian, I believe murder is a sin. But, I also believe that -- if someone is about to murder me or many other people -- my actions would be honorable rather than like a regular murderer killing someone on a whim. I honestly would seek any other recourse, but sometimes it's either you or the other guy. And your instinct tells you to survive. So you'll do what you have to in order to survive.
2007-10-01 09:27:29 · answer #5 · answered by Serena 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have thought of this question often. In my job (flight attendant) I at some point could be put in a position of having to defend my passengers and fellow crew members against a terrorist. I would have a very difficult time killing someone but if it would save others I would do it. As a mother I would also kill for my child.
I am a pacifist at heart, I hate guns or any weapons for that matter. I abhor violence. But, should I be put in a situation as the one above, I would have to do what I could to make others safe from an immediate threat.
2007-10-01 09:19:19 · answer #6 · answered by QWERTY 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If I felt like the lives of the 10 people were in some sort of danger, then yes, I would murder someone to save the lives of others.
2007-10-01 09:15:27 · answer #7 · answered by g8rfan4u 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question... I can't honestly answer it though. It would depend on the moment. If it were in the heat of the moment there's no telling what my aderinaline would make me do. I would like to say I wouldn't murder under any circumstances but then I think...if someone was hurting my daughter I would kill them without any thought. Really tough question.
2007-10-01 09:16:36 · answer #8 · answered by hootie 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the person is going to kill 10 innocent people, killing him would not be murder, it would be self-defence extended to defend others as well.
It would be better to stop him in some non-fatal way, but say he has just killed the pilot and is steering the plane towards the twin towers, if I could take him out I would!
2007-10-02 09:11:45 · answer #9 · answered by All Black 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would not murder; however, if a situation presented itself where I had the power to save 10 people by stopping one, I would do my utmost to stop that person. If I could stop him or her without killing, I would. But that option may not be there. Murder is premeditated, and I would not calculate to kill someone on the shaky premise that it would save others. I'm not a "black ops" sort.
2007-10-01 09:21:01 · answer #10 · answered by Black Dog 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋