Do you think it is OK to kill 10 people to save 1 million?

Answer 1

There isn't an actual answer to your question, and i'm certainly not prepared to enter the opinionated route in a vain attempt to provide you with one. If I was to look at your question in a strategical context, I would need to know what the threat was to the majority and whether or not we had any volunteers willing to sacrifice their lives in order to protect them. If there aren't any, then do we have 10 people available which society could quite happily live without, and if so why should their right to live taken away from them? Also you have to take into the consideration the level of effectiveness of such action be, would the threat still remain after those 10 people been executed, and wether or not there are any alternative methods of counter-action?
And then you have to take into account wether or not the 1 million could actually prove to be a greater threat themsleves, in which case, why would you feel any motivation to put your own neck on the line by actually saving them?

Answer 2

Definitely no. Wether 1 or 10 people it's morally wrong to kill human.

I would not choose either and prefer that everyone just drop weapons (or whatever causes such question to arise), thus save all 1 million plus 10.

One of Paulo Coelho's book, The Devil and Miss Prym, have provided a deep insight and a possible answer to such question. Try to read it.

Answer 3

Of course our collective sense of altruism prompts us to say, "yes, of course"

But let me play devil's advocate: is our population not dangerously close to unsustainable (if it hasn't already crossed the line!)?

Lowering the population by 1 million is the better choice for the survival of the species, provided the 1 million are randomly selected from around the world and not just one country/ethnic group -- I'm not supporting genocide!

Of course it will be sad for the families of the dead, but people are dying agonizing deaths daily from our lack of proper resource use. Of course, 1 million isn't going to make that much of a dent unless we also regulate family size.

I know I'm going to get scolded for this one ;)

Edit: Any one person finding themselves suddenly the decision-maker on this one will undoubtedly choose to save the million: the pressure of the decision would be far too great to choose otherwise

Answer 4

The CIA does; it's just really hard to predict if killing 10 absolutely 100% will result in saving 1 million

Answer 5

No --for 1 million dollars:
Yes --for 1 million people

Answer 6

Yes.

However if it was 10 people close to me versus the 1 million people I have never met or have any emotional attachment to, I'd kill the 1 million.

Answer 7

Perhaps, it depends on who the people are, why you are killing them, and why would it save the 1 million. You can not decide this sort of question based on just kill one or the other.

Answer 8

We're all human. Humans are mortal, therefore we are all going to die. Why would we spare 10 than a million. Usually there is a compromise that saves them all...yet sometimes that route kills them all...so I guess the least casualties the better.

Answer 9

Yes,it is okay to kill 10 people and save 1 million people.No to even kill 1 person for any amount of money.You did not said 1 million of what?chickens,pigs,dollars,cents..........or........?????
Killing is no even for food.Retribution?We need to paid for what we used even a grain of rice.

Answer 10

maybe yes-maybe no-depends on the people not the number of them-if survival of the species is most important-the ten might be more valuable the the million-just my thoughts-smile and enjoy the night-might even be okay to kill ten to save one