Is it ok to kill 1 to save the lives of 1000?

[flareunitgx]

Is it ok to kill 1 to save the lives of 1000?

[Stevejavson]

In principle, yes.

In actual execution, I wouldn't want to be the one who does the killing.

[Questatement]

It would depend on who the 1 and who the 1000 are and how the exchange might benefit or diminish the overall good.

[tinybear]

"Don't grief Captain. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one."

.....Mr. Spock in "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan"

I believe Mr. Spock has answered the question.

[Thanatos]

Absolutists find themselves in the same situation as Asimov's robots.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

If rule 1 is impossible to fulfill because of such a dilemma Asimov imagined that his robots would simply crash and smoke would pour out their ears. The difference between humans and robots is that absolutist humans who are presented with a choice between breaking the inviolable rights of 1 and breaking the inviolable rights of 1000 can't just BSOD.

Absolutists often say they would basically BSOD and just let the chips fall as they may, whether that favors the 1 or the 1000. Jesus or fate or whatever is supposed to take the wheel away from them.

This does not hold up for very long if it looks like Jesus is a bad driver. We're not built to stay in the fetal position forever, not when it looks like there's something left we can do about what's happening around us. People will adapt and they almost always adapt by acting like utilitarians for five minutes.

[WindWip]

Well, looks like everyone agrees. How about killing 1 to save 2 people? For the sake of argument lets just assume that they all have the exact same attributes; same age, same health etc...

[Questatement]

Even if all three share matching attributes, they will go on to different stations and enact different influences later in life. One would have to know the future to decide.

[WindWip]

Even if all three share matching attributes, they will go on to different stations and enact different influences later in life. One would have to know the future to decide.

So you're ok with it depending on where they would go and what influence they would make later on in life?

[Questatement]

I'm okay with the choice that is for the overaall good which, imo, requires the one who makes that choice to understand the future implications of that same choice.

[Apeman81]

Given no expansionary data, the choice is no choice. I have no right to take the life of one for the sake of the many.

[Muckraker]

Well, looks like everyone agrees. How about killing 1 to save 2 people?

How about killing a stranger to save the life of someone you know?

Killing yourself to save a stranger?

Killing someone you know to save yourself?



I guess the real question is how the killing occurs and who is getting killed. How many people would eat a burger if doing so required them to personally kill the cow?

Undesirable action is typically less palatable than undesirable results of inaction. And it is easier to justify the killing of another person if that person "deserves it."

Also, with the exception of a Super Villain setup, there is no scenario where we could be 100% sure that killing one person would prevent the death of anyone else. We can only know that in retrospect.

If someone breaks into my house I would probably kill them to defend my family. If someone points a gun at my son I would step in the line of fire and do whatever I could to protect him.

If, however, I was told that if I didn't slit the throat of a stranger in 30 minutes or less then 1000 random people would die I would probably go the route of inaction.

[ChimneySweep]

Sophie's Choice. If your son was the one standing alone, and your daughter the first to go of the 1000, there is no right answer. But weight the scales a bit more on one side and the answer is likely to get more complex: If the one was a do- nothing layabout (insert prejudice here), and the 1000 were Stephen Hawking clones, would your answer be the same? And one step further: if Hitler/Stalin/Mussolini/ the devil was the one and the 1000 were innocent children...and so on.