Obelix Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 You're walking through a forest in a South American jungle, when you come across a small village. The local police chief is about to summarily kill 10 people for some crime or other, but because of your eminence and wisdom he gives you a choice. If you kill 1 of these people the other 9 will be allowed to go free. Is it wrong to kill one of these people? Is it the correct thing to do to allow all 10 to die? Shoot the police cheif instead would seem to be one way out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 An unanswerable question. Regards Angel. I have no problem answering this question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 To extend the question, what if the 10 were hitler, stalin, pol pot etc etc (prior to them attainint power) Extending the question back to you... What intelligence do you have on those people ? In another scenario and context, if the police chief was Martin Luther King, who had sex affairs on the side, would you do as he says? Even though you do not know that he has a reputation that he has sex parties ? Okay, what if those sex affairs were with underage girls ? Would you view him differently and kill him instead of doing what he tells you to ? To answer the original question: Can wrong sometimes be right? No, wrong is wrong. It is not right. You may get endorsement from others and inflate your ego that you did the right thing in a social context, but immorally wrong is immorally wrong. Killing is immorally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 No, wrong is wrong. It is not right. You may get endorsement from others and inflate your ego that you did the right thing in a social context, but immorally wrong is immorally wrong. Killing is immorally wrong. Allowing people to die whom you could easily have saved, is also morally wrong. There is no way to resolve this conundrum without committing a moral sin. Even refusing to resolve it, as you suggest, will leave nine people dead that you could have kept alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Allowing people to die whom you could easily have saved, is also morally wrong. There is no way to resolve this conundrum without committing a moral sin. Even refusing to resolve it, as you suggest, will leave nine people dead that you could have kept alive. You cannot "easily" have saved them. Cos you have to kill a man to save the rest. That is not easy. There is also nothing to say that the police chief will abide by his word. Exactly why would he want you to kill 1 in order to release the rest? It makes no sense. Doing nothing is not resolving it. It is a decision in itself. It is a choice. Judging how you have written what you did, I can deduce that you probably would have killed 1 to save the rest. Well, that is you. That is not me. I also should not be vilified for having my answers to this kind of theoretical situation. Cos it is obvious that everyone have their own solution to this. Based on their own internal values. Fair enough is what I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 You cannot "easily" have saved them. Cos you have to kill a man to save the rest. That is not easy. Killing someone is very easy indeed. Thousands of people around the world do it every year, with no training. It may be morally disturbing, but it is not, in this hypothetical instance, actually difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Judging how you have written what you did, I can deduce that you probably would have killed 1 to save the rest. Perhaps you should read the whole thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Killing someone is very easy indeed. Thousands of people around the world do it every year, with no training. It may be morally disturbing, but it is not, in this hypothetical instance, actually difficult. To you maybe, but not to me. The OP asked other users to give their opinions. Not to give a generic universal opinion and speaking for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 To you maybe, but not to me. Not morally disturbing to you? You can't possibly claim that it's not easy. Slitting a throat takes no more effort than slicing a loaf of bread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Shoot the police cheif instead would seem to be one way out... It isn't explained if the 10 are guilty of a crime or not, so the policeman may be doing his job. He is doing it brutally maybe, or doing it badly, but to shoot him is the worst scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.