How many innocent people would you kill to save yourself?

[psychoblast]

From my prior post:

It is not a flaw that it is not specific about the details, in fact it could not be more specific without losing its value as a measure of general ethical attitudes.

From Sohi's response:

Well then why dont you just give us a specific example so we all have something to go by? Entertain me, i am retarted. Why are you wasting so much time avoiding giving an example?

Hmmm.... I hate to say it, but maybe you're right (about the retarded comment).

~psychoblast~

 

[SoHiAllTheTime]

I cant come up with an example, can you do it for me? I am not nearly as smart as you, please help out. SURELY you can give me an example of this scenerio! Why avoiding it? Trying to think???

 

[nicnicnic]

How many guilty people killed Christ so he could save me?

 

[jpgrdnr]

SoHi

Oh the plot from The Grey Zone is a good example. Basically you're Jewish and in order in to survive you have to work at a prison camp. Exterminating other Jews. Even children.

Would you kill yourself? Or allow yourself to be killed off?
If they promised to save your child, spouse?

Don't question the logistics of this please.

 

[glowbug]

"Lifeboat" scenarios are the most apparent example that immediately come to my mind.

Assume that you are stranded in a lifeboat with several others after having survived a plane crash in the Pacific, during a severe storm that had caused your plane to veer wildly off course (i.e., the "Cast Away" scenario).

Further assume that there are no rowing implements, and all navigational equipment washed overboard shortly after the lifeboat inflated.

Further assume that the supply of drinking water and food is extremely limited on the lifeboat.

Finally, assume that after having waited in vain many days for rescue, it has become apparent that the drinking water and food supply is insufficient to allow everyone on board to survive, and in fact that if the supply continues to be rationed among all of the lifeboat members, there is a significant likelihood that all aboard will die...since the supply is insufficient to provide a minimally adequate level of hydration, there is a significant probability that with continued equal rations, all aboard will be weakened too greatly to survive.

However, if one or more of the lifeboat occupants is killed, the survival chances of the remaining lifeboat occupants increase appreciably...not only will the food and water supply last longer, the blood (though salty) and urine of the victim can be drunk.

In that instance, do you cast lots and kill the unlucky occupant(s)?

Humans have faced these types of situations before. The Donner Party and Andes plane crash survivors both cannibalized the dead, although neither party endured the water shortage problem posed in the hypothetical above, and certainly the Andes party survivors were not forced to kill any of the people they ate...however, there is some evidence to suggest that some members of the Donner Party did cast lots to see who would be killed and cannibalized.

I suppose it could be argued that by agreeing to cast lots, each person is "purchasing" a fractional interest in wanting to kill each of the other members...but then again, assuming you've drawn a lucky lot, you don't want to kill anyone other than the unlucky person, and the unlucky person has consented to be killed, so he or she is not really trying to take your life.

Also, though I have never heard of a real-life instance of this, I watched the movie "Vertical Limit", in which rock climbers were faced with the prospect of cutting someone tethered below them from the line when the line anchor was too weak to support all of the climbers after a fall.

I suppose in that instance it could also be argued that the person being cut loose was also "trying" to kill you, since by his or her very survival instinct your life was also threatened.

But I think that PB's original question revolved around a more narrow definition of intent.

 

[Strawberry_lovemuffin]

Short quiz because I'm curious what normal ethics are on these topics:

1. How many adult strangers would you kill to save yourself (the strangers are NOT trying to kill you)?

2. Would your answer change if the strangers were children? If yes, how?

3. How many adult strangers would you kill to save your child (the strangers are NOT trying to kill your child)?

4. Would your answer change if the strangers were children? If yes, how?

5. How many adult strangers would you kill to save your lover/spouse/soul mate?

6. Would your answer change if the strangers were children?

----

1. None. I'd just accept my fate.

2. See above. Children or adult, I couldn't do it.

3. I don't have a child but I'd probably kill 2-3 people to save it if I did.

4. Yes, I'd kill one child to save my child.

5. I'd kill 1 adult (maybe) to save my partner

6. Yes, I couldn't kill a child to save my partner.

 

[Strawberry_lovemuffin]

And by the way this *could* happen..... just say you were in the building when it collapsed... a big hunk of metal was about to fall on you but your only way out is to push debris to the left possibly de-stabilizing someone precariously balanced on a beam or something. Or pushing something into their chest.

Just a thought.

I'd be more likely in this situation to just let it fall, if it became obvious I was definitely going to kill that other person, who might otherwise had lived.

But if it were my child in peril I wouldn't even stop to think.

Another interesting hypothetical: how many people would have to be in danger of dying for you to kill your own child for them?

For example a building has to be blown up to save the city (this is from a movie - can't remember which one! something with volcanic lava) but your child is inside the building. You have seconds to make a decision... hundreds of people could die. What do you do?

 

[Haywire]

you people asking for an example are tards. the original post was crystal clear. you have to make a choice -- and between yourself/your child/etc and an innocent other person. just pretend someone has a gun and says "it's you (or your kid or your spouse) or that other person...one of you dies". please people.

the question is about the choice you'd make, all else being equal. how do you value the life of a stranger compared to your own.

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

Seriously, I don't see whats so unclear about this..

Heres an example for you guys..

You're being held hostage with a bunch of people, the person holding you hostage basically says to you, if you kill the other hostages i'll let you live. How many hostages would be your limit?

I'm pretty much with PB on all the anwsers...

 

[L2R]

Seriously, I don't see whats so unclear about this..

Heres an example for you guys..

You're being held hostage with a bunch of people, the person holding you hostage basically says to you, if you kill the other hostages i'll let you live. How many hostages would be your limit?

I'm pretty much with PB on all the anwsers...

zero hostages.
i'd use whatever means given to me to kill hostages to stop (but not kill)the perp.

this answer is a legtimate as the question.

 

[JudgeFishy]

The problem with me coming up with a scenario to base this off of is the fact that I know there is always a way to dodge death

 

[glowbug]

^^^Yeah? Name one person in history who has maintained a perfect undefeated record against death.

<Insert name here> infinity, Death 0?

Even Christ supposedly lost one.

 

[PlayBoy]

I can't really give you a number we'll just wait till a come to that predicament

 

[Twip]

SoHiAllTheTime: Psychoblast gave you a few examples in his first reply. Now there's several more up, and you're still not satisfied or something. What was your motive in the first place here? (Yeah, yeah, I'm sure you haven't checked in a while.)

psychoblast: Why'd you bother typing another page to SoHi when he didn't read the first one?

HERE'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE GUYS!
A gargantuan goop monster engulfs you into its belly. There is no accessible escape, and in time you will surely die! Surprisingly, inside the goop monster you find a space-age control room complete with colored wires and a wirecutter under one of those "Break Glass In Emergency" cases. However, through some kind of diffusion of knowledge, you suddenly realize that for each wire you cut, the goop monster points to an innocent bystander and they explode! BUT, if you manage to cut the correct wire, goop magic teleports you to your bed where you are safe and sound and will never see the goop monster again.

SO, will it make a difference to you if the goop monster singles out children instead of adults?

...

Come on, people. You don't need a specific scenario; this is about giving an answer. It doesn't have to be your official press release, no one's going to place you under probation if you don't account for every single possibility. (Psychoblast might pin you with some sort of moral inconsistency, but that's okay too. It's not like that'll negatively affect you.)


Anyway, My Answer:
To 1, 3, and 5: It depends on my mood and at-/detachment to others and the world at that time. I won't quibble with numbers though. Either "enough" or "none."
To 2, 4, and 6: Not really, no. I can't say that, if pe hadn't died, something better would've happened for this or that person, regardless of per age.

 

[deviate]

infinite amount

 

[doctorlw]

Short quiz because I'm curious what normal ethics are on these topics:

1. How many adult strangers would you kill to save yourself (the strangers are NOT trying to kill you)?

I don't really understand how this relates to ethics since you would never have to be in a situation that demands killing innocent people.

But I'll answer your question...

Assuming I had no other choice (because I would try every alternative before this situation came about, including one that would probably have gotten me killed anyway), I would kill as many as it took. Once you kill one innocent it is all the same after that. There really isn't a difference between one and a million.

Also, once you are gone...that's it. If it comes down to it... no other alternatives, I'll preserve my own life. The only exception to this would be wiping out the human race or something equivelant to it - then I would sacrifice myself.

2. Would your answer change if the strangers were children? If yes, how?

No.

3. How many adult strangers would you kill to save your child (the strangers are NOT trying to kill your child)?

Once again, as many as it takes.

4. Would your answer change if the strangers were children? If yes, how?

Same as above.

5. How many adult strangers would you kill to save your lover/spouse/soul mate?

That depends. Lover or spouse. I'd probably sacrifice them. If I found a woman that I legitimately could call my soul mate, the same answer applies as the ones above.

6. Would your answer change if the strangers were children?

No.

 

[Void]

I havent been in that situation but I'd like to say none, I'd just play my chances without doing that. Though I think its more realistic to say how many collateral damage as in foreign civilians would you let die to make money? Thats more inline with our advanced civilization.

 

[Void]

Re: Re: How many innocent people would you kill to save yourself?

1. None. I'd just accept my fate.

2. See above. Children or adult, I couldn't do it.

3. I don't have a child but I'd probably kill 2-3 people to save it if I did.

4. Yes, I'd kill one child to save my child.

5. I'd kill 1 adult (maybe) to save my partner

6. Yes, I couldn't kill a child to save my partner.

If you'd do that you'd probably also fall into the emotion of venegance, to get back at whoever killed your child by killing them. I've been thinking of those two female suicide bombers in russia, weren't they both mothers? Makes you wonder if these people are more then mindless terrorists who want to destroy our culture, I wonder how much horror and death they had to see to get to that extreme.

 

[Strawberry_lovemuffin]

^ See, they think they're going to a "better place" though - eternal salvation- so it's all worth it. What an incentive 8)

To the people who'd kill children to save themselves - how could you live with that?

Seriously..... how could you?

 

[glowbug]

^^^As far as the question of killing children goes, though I certainly share your distaste for the idea, I don't think it's quite that black/white...especially given the extreme situations with which one would almost certainly have to be faced to even be forced to contemplate the choice.

E.g., in the lifeboat hypothetical I posed, assume that one of the lifeboat occupants is a child incapable of caring for itself. Now assuming that the lifeboat party has opted for the humane "we won't kill anyone, even though it's highly probable we'll all die as we continue to give equal rations in the fading hope of rescue" option, does an infant child really stand a chance of survival if most or all of the adult members die or are severely weakened?

In that instance, isn't it arguably more humane to kill the child outright? Or would you rather stop giving it water rations at some point so that it dies a painful dehydration death, just so you can say you didn't kill it with your own hands (even though you essentially DID)?

The movie "Sophie's Choice" addressed the issue of killing children, in fact, killing one's own child. Sophie was faced with the dilemma of choosing which of her two children, the boy or the girl, would be spared, and which would be sent to the gas chamber. If I recall correctly, Sophie chose to spare the boy's life, since the boy arguably stood a greater chance of survival.