An Ultimatum

Discussion in 'Debate Corner' started by Cyanide, Apr 3, 2010.

  1. Cyanide King's Apprentice

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    50
    412
    This is an interesting little thought experiment that I came across a while ago.

    Imagine the following scenario: a sizable group of people (let's say, 100,000), with representatives from just about every facet of society, is in immediate danger of coming to great harm, and most likely, death. You don't know any of these people at all, and as such are not attached to them whatsoever.

    You, due to whatever circumstances, are placed in a position where you can effectively save the lives of all these people. However, you find that there is a small but significant obstacle in your way: a misguided individual, who happens to be someone you know reasonably well and care for (a brother, a father, a mother, a longtime friend who's basically family, etc), who is, for whatever reason, preventing you from saving them.

    This scenario, give or take a few variations, is common enough in fiction; usually what happens is that, against all appearances and odds, the "hero" comes through and is able to avoid taking a life AND saves the people.

    However, let's assume that it's not like that here: you try everything possible given your means to save the people/dissuade the person trying to stop you, however it becomes clear to you that you only have two choices: kill the person, or let the people die (and for argument's sake, there is no alternative).

    What do you do?
     
  2. Always Dance Chaser

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    220
    It honestly depends on the person. If it was my dad I'd have to bite the bullet and kill him, but if it was my 4 year old brother, I wouldn't have it in me.
     
  3. Blademaster Mai'kel Hollow Bastion Committee

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Location:
    My aleatorium
    17
    588
    Kill the person in my way.

    And if I had more choices, I'd probably kill myself, so as to avoid having to make such a difficult choice.
     
  4. Styx That's me inside your head.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    319
    I'd like to think that I can kill the person in my way, whoever it is, but there's just no way to be 100% sure. Then again, if I stop and think that I would deny thousands of people happiness in exchange for a few, I think my rational side would come out on top.
     
  5. TheMagicalMisterMistoffelees Professional Crazy

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    The other side of the monitor
    345
    I will not deny 100,000 people of a rich cultural variety (living in what I can only assume is a good amount of peace) their lives for the will of someone I know and for my own mental well-being. Under any circumstances.
     
  6. Patsy Stone Мать Россия

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2007
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    133
    Rationality is the only basis for life (read Atlas Shrugged). However, if the 100,000 people that I would save were incompetant and unable to provide for themselves then what would be the point of killing the person that I know/love? Should I do it because of the guilt that I would feel for saving the useless people?

    I think not.
     
  7. TheMagicalMisterMistoffelees Professional Crazy

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Location:
    The other side of the monitor
    345
    What separates the person that you care about from the rest of the body of people? What makes them so capable if everyone around them is incompetent?
     
  8. Kaidron Blaze Kingdom Keeper

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Gale Valleys, before the darkness attacks...
    28
    881
    I think this questions is one of thoughs that is unethical to answer unless your acctually in that situation. Because I would say save the masses 100,000 lives are more important than one but unless I'm in that situation I can't deturmin my acctuall movements. See what I mean?
     
  9. Peace and War Bianca, you minx!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    1,282
    Can we leave any of Ayn Rand's philosphies out of the discussions, since they effectively consist of refusing selfless acts in order to sastify personal wants and needs. If everyone thought that way we'd barely be able to communicate on a large scale as a species, leading us to live in small numbered communities or complete hermitage.

    On the discussion at hand, I would believe that killing the misguided and personal relation of mine would be the best choice. Even if I chose not to kill them I'd have the constant presence of guilt and regret in me that I may have been able to save people and the fact I'd look at my loved one and only see all those dead people, pretty much severing any close tie I use to have with them.