Viewing Thread:
"Morality Test - Kill 1 for 1000?"

Here's my question to you today: if there was 1000 people inside a building surrounded by terrorists and for them to survive, you have to kill an innocent child. If not, then the 1000 will die. Would you:

- Kill the child so that the 1000 can live.

- Let the child live so that the 1000 die.

I hope for some interesting answers - it's a test of morality and there is no right or wrong answer. Thanks. Flux.

Here's my question to you today: if there was 1000 people inside a building surrounded by terrorists and for them to survive, you have to kill an innocent child. If not, then the 1000 will die. Would you:

- Kill the child so that the 1000 can live.

- Let the child live so that the 1000 die.

I hope for some interesting answers - it's a test of morality and there is no right or wrong answer. Thanks. Flux.

Flux wrote:
> Here's my question to you today: if there was 1000 people inside a
> building surrounded by terrorists and for them to survive, you have to
> kill an innocent child. If not, then the 1000 will die.

Two questions:

What's the estimated civilian death total if we storm the building and kill the Terrorists?

Can we use John McLane?

interesting.

What if one of the people inside the building might go on to discover a cure for cancer? What if the innocent child turns out to be the next hitler?

Pesonally, I'd kill the baby.

This scenario would never happen in reality, so it's just hyperthetical nonsense.

Kill the kid. Its well worth it.

Here's another one. Suppose you are the only rescue vehicle able to attend a shipwreck. There are ten people stranded in the water, all of whom will die if you don't help them. Your craft can only hold seven people. If you overload it, there is a fifty-fifty chance that it will sink.

Do you choose seven of the people to live, and three to die, or do you take everyone but leave a only fifty-fifty chance of survival?


Decided yet?


Mathematically, you should choose the seven. People tend not to though, as they can't face the responsibility of choosing who dies.

VenomByte wrote:

> Decided yet?


Can't you just take the 7, and come back for the other 3?

No. It's too far and they'll be dead by the time you get back. You'll also run out of fuel and a freak accident will blow your motor after the first load. Additionally, they will be attacked by sharks and drowned by a freak tidal wave.


So only one trip.

How about this - a madman is pointing a gun at your best friend and your girlfriend. You have to choose which one lives... who do you pick? Eh? Eh? Eh? Good, innit?

VenomByte wrote:
> Here's another one. Suppose you are the only rescue vehicle able to
> attend a shipwreck. There are ten people stranded in the water, all of
> whom will die if you don't help them. Your craft can only hold seven
> people. If you overload it, there is a fifty-fifty chance that it will
> sink.
>
> Do you choose seven of the people to live, and three to die, or do you
> take everyone but leave a only fifty-fifty chance of survival?

You put 7 in the boat and drag three behind tied to it by rope, rotating people around so that nobody gets too cold.