How and why is killing wrong?

[PokeDad]

Boofu wins this thread easily!

 

[Tentacruel13]

1. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron?
2. Would you kill James to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron?
3. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both 200 people?
4. Would you kill a 7 year old child to prevent the killing of Tim and Ron, two adults?

1.Yes, because 1 life gets saved instead of 0 lives.

2.Yes, because 2 lives is better than one.

3. Yes, because 1<200.

4.No, the children are our future.

Those are my answers without any personal preference.

Why did you start this thread anyway? Did you happen to come across a Death Note?

 

[Paperfairy]

I have no problems killing myself to save another person. I hear heaven is a pretty great place ;x

If you want to get really into it, those who commit suicide don't go to heaven.


As for the topic itself, I am a strong Christian, which says not to kill, but I believe there is leeway for killing those for a greater good, which in all four situations, there is.

 

[ixidor89]

1. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron?
2. Would you kill James to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron?
3. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both 200 people?
4. Would you kill a 7 year old child to prevent the killing of Tim and Ron, two adults?

1. Tim's a jerk, and Ron was his jerk friend. Let them both die.
2. Why would I kill James if he's just offing two jerks?
3. I would kill Tim if it meant that 200 people WOULD die.
4. Can I kill the 7 year-old after Tim and Ron die?

 

[Prime]

1. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron?
2. Would you kill James to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron?
3. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both 200 people?
4. Would you kill a 7 year old child to prevent the killing of Tim and Ron, two adults?

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.

I don't believe in killing anyone as long as there is any chance of stopping the people from dying another way. If I kill someone, I have done something just as bad as the killer did. I'd rather shoot the killer in the hand so he can't fire his gun, or knock him out if I must stop him.

 

[The Knee]

There's a name for this....The....something-car question....i can't remember the exact name....this post may be edited if i find it...

 

[G-Dog4377]

As for the topic itself, I am a strong Christian, which says not to kill, but I believe there is leeway for killing those for a greater good, which in all four situations, there is.

This is a topic known as euthanasia, which is an act of killing to preserve a greater good. This is very well exemplified in the book Of Mice and Men. To a different degree, there is the movie Hot Fuzz, which portrayed a way that people can take it too far in that preservation of a greater good. I will stand by that, even though Hot Fuzz is a comedy, and as such, this portrayal is comedic. However, I feel the point is made well enough none the less.

In my standpoint on your questions, I am pretty much identical to Cyrus. I have always been the sort of guy to try and determine the correct answer using math.:thumb:

 

[Crosplat]

If they are equal, then I would kill one or a few to save the many. The only exception is to 4. The only way I could kill a child is if they were trying to kill me or somebody important to me. Assuming that they are equal, and hence meaningless to me, I could not kill a child.

Call me weird, but I physically and mentally cannot comprehend killing an innocent, even though meaningless, child.

What gives me problems with this question is that everybody is equal. If it was a question like,"Would you kill Tim, a loving father of 4 children who was truly a model citizen, to save the lives of 1000 guilty murderers," I would easily save Tim. But the fact that everybody is equal, equally guilty, innocent, important, or meaningless, forces me to rely on the pure logic that the many outweigh the few.

Except for the child which causes a moral barrier to pop up.

 

[Azure Kite]

It doesn't matter. Equal value all around, so they are such that they all have equal value. Whatever properties one needs to possess to be equal to some other individuals in your mind is exactly the properties any of these individuals have. They are blank slates.

The only things that matter are that all individuals are equal, and that the facts will take place. Nothing else matters.

Thats just it. I don't believe everyone is equal to me. True, everyone is created equal, and with equal values and rights, no matter our appearance or other factors that affect who we are. But there are people who mean a lot to me, and there are people who mean nothing to me. There are people who I would shed a tear for if I lost them, and then there are those who I care nothing about, as a person who knows nothing about them. Every day I hear about people in the news who have died or have been killed. This barely affects me, and I forget about it in a matter of minutes or seconds. Obviously, if a close family member or friend died, it would drastically affect my life. The point is, there is no way to complete this survey unless your looking at a person in 1 way or another. I will give my answers now, going on the assumption that I know absolutely nothing about any of the people in the questions.

1. Yes, because Tim is going to die either way, so hey, why not save 1 life?

2. Yes, 2 lives are greater than 1 life.

3. Yes. Better to lose 1, than to lose 200.

4. Your saying Tim and Ron are the adults, or Tim and Ron, and 2 adults? Either way, women and children first, so I would kill the people who had already lived atleast to their 50s.

 

[Brady1]

Should we discriminate two individuals for being older in case 4? Do we have a special responsibility to children over adults? Is the life of a child more valuable than an adult's?

I think it will help if everyone at least answers 1-4 so that we can have a better idea of the different answers out there.

The two adults have experience life. Has that child? Though why the child would murder somebody needs obvious clarification. I don't think theres any reason why the child would just buy a gun randomly and go and shoot two people. If it was his parents or something, then obvious something must have provoked the underdevolped mind of the child to do such a thing.

Anyways, yes to all but the child.

 

[ryanvergel]

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.

I don't believe in killing anyone as long as there is any chance of stopping the people from dying another way. If I kill someone, I have done something just as bad as the killer did. I'd rather shoot the killer in the hand so he can't fire his gun, or knock him out if I must stop him.

In this scenario there is a DIRECT causal relationship between NOT killing the first individual and it resulting in the death of the latter individual(s). As I said, treat everything as fact and the fact is that unless the former killing occurs there will be the latter killing.

 

[toxictaipan]

Okay, I have one problem with the 4th question. If the 7 year old is going to kill (assuming that it is the killer in this case) 2 adults, does this child really need to live? It's obviously not sane and only a danger to other people. Age is not a factor here.

 

[ryanvergel]

If they are equal, then I would kill one or a few to save the many. The only exception is to 4. The only way I could kill a child is if they were trying to kill me or somebody important to me. Assuming that they are equal, and hence meaningless to me, I could not kill a child.

Call me weird, but I physically and mentally cannot comprehend killing an innocent, even though meaningless, child.

What gives me problems with this question is that everybody is equal.
This was done to try to eliminate any other properties that might give rise to the formation of special relationships or attachments or other factors that will sway or make someone's biases begin to show. We're trying to get at a general or bare analysis of what exactly makes killing wrong, and why in different instances with a lot of different people we have all sorts of different answers. What does this say about our idea of murder? About our idea of law for murder? Our entire foundation for morality, since murder is often a "fundamental principle" to many forms of moral theories.

If it was a question like,"Would you kill Tim, a loving father of 4 children who was truly a model citizen, to save the lives of 1000 guilty murderers," I would easily save Tim. But the fact that everybody is equal, equally guilty, innocent, important, or meaningless, forces me to rely on the pure logic that the many outweigh the few.
I mean, isn't everyone equal? I'm beginning to question why people have such a difficulty letting go of those attachments which will obviously sway judgment. This situation should be more reasonable, to me at least, since it treats all individuals concerned equally, and isn't that what morality calls for? Or at least how we react to murder?

Except for the child which causes a moral barrier to pop up.

I want to consider the hesitance a lot of people have over killing a child. Why does this hesitance exist? Are you saying that the child deserves to live more than two adults? If so, what property does the child have so that it deserves this? Is it because it's younger? That's just judging the individuals on age, when we're supposed to be considering their lives equally. The two adults have lives, and are their lives not valued just as equally as a child's? It's illogical to think of any person being MORE valuable, of DESERVING to live more than another because they are younger than another, TWO people. Perhaps it's just squeamishness that is making so many of you react to say 'no' to case 4.

For those of you who have said no to case 2 but yes to case 3, what was the difference to allow it to happen? In both cases you have an equally valuable individual dying to save a greater amount of equally valued individuals, in case 2 exchanging 2 for 1, and in case 3 exchanging 199 for 1. In both cases there is a net value gain, so where is it that we draw the line between okay and not okay? If it's 10 value gain is it morally okay to you? Shouldn't any positive exchange be favored and say yes?

If so, shouldn't 4 also be accepted?

 

[ryanvergel]

The two adults have experience life. Has that child? Though why the child would murder somebody needs obvious clarification. I don't think theres any reason why the child would just buy a gun randomly and go and shoot two people. If it was his parents or something, then obvious something must have provoked the underdevolped mind of the child to do such a thing.

Anyways, yes to all but the child.

I never said the child would do the killing. Perhaps there is a man named Pedro who will blow up a car with Tim, Ron and a 7 year old inside of it, and if you kill the 7 year old yourself he won't blow the car up and you can save Ron and Tom, who are both adults. You can conjure in your mind any scenario that would provide a logically possible universe to allow this to happen. It doesn't matter how, it's just the effects we are worried about, and the relationships of murder value.

 

[Lakak]

So what your saying is that everyone is basically an unimportant blob, in your situations?

1. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron?
Yeah, Tim the blob dies either way. Sorry Tim!

2. Would you kill James to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron?
Sorry James, Tim and Ron are two blobs, you are only one!

3. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both 200 people?
I like my blobs, sorry Tim!

4. Would you kill a 7 year old child to prevent the killing of Tim and Ron, two adults?
Sorry 7 year old blob! It also depends on if the two adults, Tim, and Ron are crusy(near death). If they are crusty(about to die anyway), then nah, I'll keep my soft and gooey play-doh. If they aren't crusty, then sorry 7 year old blob.



I think having them be blobs really helps out your example, because then everyone is equal in all respects and there is no emotional attatchment to anything.

 

[G-Dog4377]

I believe that is exactly what Ryan wanted. The use of blobs had me laughing the entire time I just read that post. "Sorry James, Tim and Ron are two blobs, you are only one!":lol::lol: Thank you Lakak.

 

[Lucario EX]

1. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron?
2. Would you kill James to prevent the killing of both Tim and Ron?
3. Would you kill Tim to prevent the killing of both 200 people?
4. Would you kill a 7 year old child to prevent the killing of Tim and Ron, two adults?

1: Yes, Tim will die anyway.
2: Yes, 2>1
3: Yes, of course.
4: Yes, 2>1, regardless of age.

 

[Freezepop]

Ryan, the situatutions you told us don't explain how they are getting killed. You didn't explain to us health, age or status.

If Tim is shooting Ron and then himself, why can't we save both of them by taking the gun away. Sure Tim dies either way in your perspective, but what about Jill?

I don't think it is ever right to kill anyone. Why is Tim wanting to kill the 200 people in the first place. I'm sure he planned that if we killed him his bomb in the auditorium would go off anyways.

I mean we all die anyways, but it isn't right to kill because of the emotional breakdown other ssuffer.

 

[PokeDad]

Ryan,

1 and 3 being a yes, but 2 and 4 being a no bothers you? Let me explain my reasoning.

I would kill 1 person if by not killing that person means that both that person and another person were going to be killed anyway.

I would kill 1 person if it meant saving 200 other people from being killed. I'm like the gal who would hook up with a guy for a million dollars.

I would not kill 1 person if it meant saving 2 other people from being killed. I'm like the gal who wouldn't hook up with a guy for twenty dollars.

I would not kill a child if it meant saving 2 other adults from being killed. I am a parent and I was an Infantry soldier. I am conditioned to cherish youth and protect the weakest among us.

Overcoming the inhibition to not kill, for me, requires a great need. I understand that 1<2<4<200, and what I would do for 200 vs. 1, I should logically do for 2 vs. 1, however I am not Spock.

 

[ryanvergel]

Ryan,

1 and 3 being a yes, but 2 and 4 being a no bothers you? Let me explain my reasoning.

I would kill 1 person if by not killing that person means that both that person and another person were going to be killed anyway.

I would kill 1 person if it meant saving 200 other people from being killed. I'm like the gal who would hook up with a guy for a million dollars.

I would not kill 1 person if it meant saving 2 other people from being killed. I'm like the gal who wouldn't hook up with a guy for twenty dollars.

I would not kill a child if it meant saving 2 other adults from being killed. I am a parent and I was an Infantry soldier. I am conditioned to cherish youth and protect the weakest among us.

Overcoming the inhibition to not kill, for me, requires a great need. I understand that 1<2<4<200, and what I would do for 200 vs. 1, I should logically do for 2 vs. 1, however I am not Spock.

So you are saying you're taking an illogical stance?

Morality sometimes requires us to make great sacrifices. You'd sacrifice whatever feelings you had to be able to kill for 200 but not for 2? What the difference, the number? What about to save three? Five? Is it some arbitrary number, because so far it seems that you don't know the number, but there is no rationality behind the number, so it's just a random assignment.

You were conditioned to cherish youth? Does that mean that you know it's some other factor, not real moral rule, that says that, for you at least, killing a child is wrong?