Subject: Would you kill one to save many? Moral dilemma

While doing your survey i was thinking: where's the dilemma?

I mean If i had the chance I could murder the whole island full of kids just for the lulz

I cant really imagine who would vote against it ;-).

Really, can't you imagine anyone? ;-)

I cant really imagine who would vote against it ;-).

Really, can't you imagine anyone? ;-)

No ;-)
(edited)

Well, if one is a defender of the non-initiation of violence principle, one has to reject the fumes. It's the only consistent choice. So yeah, there are people who would vote against. Including me. Utilitarianism sucks.

And in reality you never have only two clear options. You can send back the medicine until the scientists either tweak it, so it won't kill the diseased kids, or they'll might come up with something new.

The point is, that everyone shall have at least some chance to survive, and you can't take it away from people, in the name of anything. Because when you deliberately kill the innocents, and you say the end justifies the means, it's a good way to reach something like Stalinism.

If you dont kill them then all others will be infected by them. World ends ;-).

Well, first of all, that's your assumption, of which you cannot be sure (cure can be found in a later stage).

Apart from that, you're killing people 'because it's in the interests of the collective'. That's a dangerous practice, if you ask me. Not only because I doubt there is a way to ensure the interests of the collective are protected (and even further, I doubt the collective has interests at all). Majorly because such measures remove ALL rights from the individual. There is no right to live any more. That is for me indefensible.

Apparently, for you, in time of crisis, there are no individual rights. I strongly disagree with that.

Edit: And apart from that, I don't consider the extinction of the human race a problem. More like an inconvenience ;-)
(edited)

World wouldn't end. It's on an island. :)

So you say, that we have the right to kill the infected children, because they'll die anyway.

Now, let's just imagine a different situation in theory:

The world is overpopulated, there are too many people live here, and soon there'll be food shortages. I assume you're mortal. So would we have the right to kill you? Someday you would die anyway, and this way there'll be more food for the others. :P

But to be a bit more serious, with your logic, people would soon find the ideology to exterminate people (poor people for example), so overpopulation or any problem could be solved.

Kind of the Idea behind the Nazi-Ideology for expanding to the East. Not exactly, but to some parts.

Sadly i dont remember the correct text, so i cant react correctly, but from that i understood, there were no other possibility.

Individual rights are ignored not only in times of crisis. Happens every day. And everyday more people die because of that than i would kill kids in that case.

From my experience and the history of humanity i can state that human being is EVIL by nature. Every one of us including you and me.

I believe we were in a political discussion some time ago, so if its you there is no point saying this, but i will do it anyway :-). I had the chance to live under totalitary regime in which collective interest were more important that individual rights. But i lived most of my life in "democracy" where almost only individual rights are important. So my another statement is: In the totalitary regime were less individual right "broken" than now in "democracy" => 20:80.

And i agree with you that extinction of the human race would not be a problem. It would be a blessing for Earth ;-).

The text didn't say the disease would be eradicated, just that the fumes would kill carriers. Yet it came from somewhere to begin with, so maybe new infections will take place. Which means the fumes question will rise again, and that changes the question, because it becomes either letting a disease kill many people over time as we search for a solution, or killing ourselves many (infected) people over time as we look for a solution. In one case people die as the disease progresses, and in the other case people dies as the disease progresses.
So it's not about the world ending, but about some marginal timing issue :P

This survey is trolling as every survey you did. One real question and the rest some stupid trick questions... Anyway, I did it.

You are not God to decide who lives and who dies.At that moment when u take the decision could be no other posibility to survive but who knows what will appear next day?
the problem is not that u answered like that, is cause u still think u took the right decision after others gave u good reasons to not do it.

Individual rights are ignored not only in times of crisis. Happens every day.

And that is a reason to continue to do so?

And everyday more people die because of that than i would kill kids in that case.

"They killed more people so my killing is justified." What kind of sick morality is that?

From my experience and the history of humanity i can state that human being is EVIL by nature. Every one of us including you and me.

Humans are both good and evil. Circumstances can push us into the good or the evil direction.

I had the chance to live under totalitary regime in which collective interest were more important that individual rights. But i lived most of my life in "democracy" where almost only individual rights are important. So my another statement is: In the totalitary regime were less individual right "broken" than now in "democracy" => 20:80.

Well, the right on property is always broken (as there are taxes). Still, I think, nay, claim that we are still better off than under a totalitarian regime like Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. Let me sum up some key rights that were (seriously) broken under communist rule and that are certainly less broken under democratic rule:
- right to live
- right on property
- right on free expression of opinions
- right on free movement

This is like Ostalgie.

And i agree with you that extinction of the human race would not be a problem. It would be a blessing for Earth ;-).

Then why would you want to save the human race from extinction?
(edited)

I will ignore all statements which lack arguments.

So that leaves this


Let me sum up some key rights that were (seriously) broken under communist rule and that are certainly less broken under democratic rule:
- right to live
- right on property
- right on free expression of opinions
- right on free movement


1. right to live - NO - in USA (democracy) you still can be killed by law, which i think is good.
2. right to property - NO - Everyone had ALL, "every" property belonged to all
3. right on free expression of opinions - YES
4. right on free movement - YES

The point i wanted to say that democracy is the cause of deep fall of morality.
And you can feel it more in post-cummunistic countries. Try to visit a restaurant in Bratislava :-).

You are not God to decide who lives and who dies.At that moment when u take the decision could be no other posibility to survive but who knows what will appear next day?
the problem is not that u answered like that, is cause u still think u took the right decision after others gave u good reasons to not do it.

Lol, who is deciding what?
Question was asked if i could decide then what would be my decision.
And i expressed it. And i stand for my word!
You really would not want me as a ruler :-).
First thing i would do is to forbid alcohol.
Then smoking.
Then reenabling the sentence of death.
And then three times convicted => sentence of death.

Thats because i believe that humanity needs strong hand to take over it.
Believe or not if i would not be killed in first week, then humanity would be happy as never was ;-).

And who are you? God? When you want to forbid me to express my opinion? :-).