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.

Pandemonium wrote:
> Unless of course you are in the Russian forces, then you just gas the
> lot.

Seeing as there'll be no topic for this by now;

The use of gas was preferable to the detonation of enough explosives to leave little more than a burnt out shell with 100% casualties. Given the situation Russia's troops did a top notch job that our own SAS and America's SEAL's would have been hard pressed to better.

~~Belldandy~~

Depends which building it was - if it was 'Nazi's INC.', then I'd let the child live. If it was a nuresery, what do you think I would do?

If it was my broher I had to kill, I couldn't and wouldn't. I'd offer to kill myself instead.

Pandemonium wrote:
> Unless of course you are in the Russian forces, then you just gas the
> lot.

So everyone will know the name Keyser Soz*cough*

But that's another thread

Belldandy wrote:
> It is though. Given a situation most people will, if the solution
> isn't good, look for another answer that is.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~


Life is full of difficult decisions. This is why people run away from their problems rather than face them.

If there is *no* other option?

Easy. Kill the child. 1000 lives far outweigh 1.

Why do armed forces accept a 10-20% loss in a hostage situation? So the majority can live.

Unless of course you are in the Russian forces, then you just gas the lot.

Kill them all and then blame someone else?

VenomByte wrote:
> Don't try to outwit the question: that's not the point.

It is though. Given a situation most people will, if the solution isn't good, look for another answer that is.

~~Belldandy~~

Miserableman wrote:
> You're a Jew in Nazi Germany, trying to escape the patrols looking for
> you with a group of other Jews. You hold in your hands your very young
> baby, who won't stop crying, alerting your position to the patrol. As
> much as you try and muffle the baby, it can still be heard.
>
> A woman faced with this choice in WWII hit her babys head on a rock
> until it died to enable the group to escape.

And indeed a hard decision it must have been to make, however i dont see why she didnt just smother the child, beating its head on a rock seems fairly brutal.

Grix Thraves wrote:

> Well, I'm a bit buggered, because for me they're the same person.

Thats so sweet.

VenomByte wrote:
> Don't try to outwit the question: that's not the point.

I'm fairly certain I can murder a child with impunity. I would never do so by choice, but if a thousand lives were at stake, I have the moral flexibility to allow that action.