Sitara's ethics series: Killing 1 to save 100 is acceptable?
Yes.
Side Score: 3
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 2
|
|
|
|
|
I think it'll depend on the situation. Does the person choose to be sacrificed? As terrible as it sounds, is the person young? If I had the choice to choose me I would, but if there was an asshole that didn't care about anyone else but himself.....well I don't know. I'd choose him over a child for sure, if I couldn't chose myself. Side: Yes.
1
point
I totally agree with this statement. But I would probably choose someone who is reaching the end of their life.... an elderly.. maybe a person suffering from a fatal disease/ sickeness... i am not being mean here but that is the only choice in this tyoe of situation. Side: Yes.
|
It's one of those scenarios where the armchair philosopher says one thing now but would do something completely different if living the scenario. I think most people would say 1 death to save 100 lives is a good deal. Most people would first though explore every option of simply killing the terrorist. And if killing the terrorist might also kill some hostages then a second assessment is needed of how many collateral deaths would be acceptable. And I think people actually living as hostages would run the full gambit from frozen in fear to hyper rational to ready to storm the terrorist individually or en mass. Were the group of hostages able to fully talk it through they could conclude anything from sacrifice 1 to storm the terrorist, but in reality they're never going to get to hold a forum to talk it through and reach a decision. Side: No.
|
