Utilitarian morality has its limits. For example, most people will answer this question "Yes", but will be much more hesitant when a context is given. Ex. 5 people are dying in a hospital from organ failures. Is it alright to kill the man waiting in the lobby to give his organs to the 5 people in need, killing 1 to save 5? Most people say no, and that's because of rights theory. However, since this lacks a context, I still say yes.

It depends on the nature of a specific case. For instance, I probably wouldn't kill a child to save 100 nonogenarians but probably the reverse. It's simply too general a question. Life just isn't black and white.

Unless the one person was of great importance, it would be logical to save the hundred people. By not killing the one person, you are indirectly killing the hundred by negligence.

That, however, is a general answer to a general question. Factors could obviously play into this situation that could change my answer.

Logically, it's a simple choice. Kind of like cost to benefit ratio, we're looking at the minimal amount of suffering to result from our decision. Statistically it makes sense to save a hundred lives by sacrificing one, however real-world context would complicate things. For example, would I kill an innocent person to save a hundred elderly, sickly humans who would die in a year or so regardless? No (depending on the age of the person in question).

Since there is no specific context given, I'd just say that the logical decision to make would be to kill that one person to save a hundred others, however I do not know whether I could actually kill the person myself. I doubt I could if the person was innocent and/or a child, but I'll vote yes since no details are given.

According to Immanuel Kant, the criteria for trading lives is "That a rational being should never be used as merely an unconsenting means to an end, even the end of benefiting others" (Taken from the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins).

What does this mean? If a person is sacrificed as a collateral consequence, i.e flipping a switch which would save the lives of people on a train by switching the tracks, but another person is on the set of tracks you are shifting the train on and can't escape in time, then it is justified.

However, if the person is sacrificed as a direct consequence,i.e pushing a fat man on the train tracks to slow a train that would otherwise careen off a cliff, then this is considered unjustified.

(Both examples also taken from The God Delusion)

Nevertheless, I would probably do the deed, since in strictly utilitarian terms, the hundred people would be able to do more in the world than the one.

Preservation of life is not the highest order of things on my list of causes. Everyone is going to die, no matter what we do, no matter how many lives we "save" in the present, everyone will die.

The real difference, what we can actually change, is how we live. Sacrifices of human beings for the sake of other human beings is completely permissible to me for the following reasons:

1. To save a very large number of people from death by natural disaster, war, terrorism, or man-made accident. This is in order to both preserve human life and for the sake of national stability. We must, at all times, try to keep our people as prosperous and secure as possible.

2. To save very important people whose use to humanity, and to the nation, are astronomical. We have to save the Edisons, the Einsteins, the Roosevelts, the Madame Curies, the General Pattons, and the Mozarts of our world. They better our lives, protect our people, lead our nations to prosperity and prestige, and advance our scientific powers and knowledge.

These people, individually, will end up saving millions to billions of lives over the years. (Just think about the uses of electricity and how they've formed the backbone of everything from refrigerators to CAT scans).

3. In the name of equality, freedom, Democracy, Socialism, Communism, or any other liberating ideology which serves to improve the lives, economic situation, and happiness of the greatest number of people. This includes national liberations which achieve these ends as well as racial, gender, sexual orientation, and other equality struggles.

I'd kill 100 bad guys for one good one.

Assuming everyone involved is an "average" person, and they are all "worth" the same, then yes, of course. The maximum amount of lives should be preserved.

If you don't kill that one person, you are, in effect, killing 100. So the question could be rephrased as, "Would you rather kill 1 person or kill 100 people?" I think the answer is obviously 1 person.

hmm...would you kill 100 people to save one very close person??

This is too relative.

Who is the one, and will this person kill or let 100 people die to save a 1000? What if the 100 people are against your set of morals? What if the 100 are against you? Would you give up your life for the 100? Even if there were 100,000 that agreed with you, and 100 wanted to kill you? Would you fight the 100 to save yourself? Even if it meant killing the 100?

It's completely subjective and I don't know how anyone could have answered this with a yes or no.

I believe the value of one life to 100 is a big diffrence trying to save the life would be a smart try but if there is no way to save him then kill him, now if it's a man with an intet to destroy or plans to take over and make a dictatorship kill him save everyone else from problems.

Killing one man to save one hundred is the right thing to do.

Of course I would it just seems like the right thing to do. If what I did saved the lives of 99 people then I do not see why not.

depends on who that one person iscause i dont think i could kill someone i careed about

As previously stated, this is far too general a question, but I would still have to say no, at least in most cases. Now obviously, if the person was a tyrant, or a serial killer, or a "heaven-bent" terrorist seeking to kill a hundred people, I would probably say yes. But the question is, where does it stop? Do we then start killing innocent people for the benefit of others, would one group of a hundred constitute more deaths than another? As Hollywood has portrayed, do we start cloning people for body parts? Do we start killing the elderly to allow for more food for starving people?

No, killing the few to save the many only leads to more and more justification for taking a human life. Before you know it, you end up with a genocide.

I couldn't personally kill someone, no matter what the outcomes of my action will be. I don't actually think I have it in me, and I hope I never ever will.

Without any context I'd have to say no however I think with certain situations I might say yes.

e.g. If a suicide bomber was about to take out 100 innocent people, and I was certain about this I think I could find it in myself to shoot him. But I'm not sure I could justify killing an innocent person.

I only selected no because it was the loosing side lol.... i think any sane person could take either side of the argument with no context to work from.

its easier said than done, first of all if you ever killed someone your chest would feel empty, you'd feel a pain inside you because you actually took another persons life, and plus its destiny, no one can stop it, if a hundred people have to die so be it, and also that person that you have to kill might be someone you really love...

There is no justice in killing anyone. It is murder.

First you should ask if you would give up your own life to save others.

It is relatively easy to recommend sacrificing an anonymous person "in the hospital lobby" to save "five persons needing organ transplants". But consider that the life of the person in the lobby has value, too. Suppose he happens to be a great scientist or a parent or the surgeon that's supposed to do the transplant surgery, etc.

The discussion quickly becomes complicated when we try to compare the values of individual human lives.

Not without an appropriate context.

If we kill people to save people, there will be no way of progress in future. We will simply know that to save 100 people we have to sacrifice one, reminds me of some ancient times