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.

Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Has anyone got Steven Seagal's phone number? Because I'd ask if I
> could kill him instead.

Too true, might as well throw Van Damme in as well. Just to make up the numbers

Is the kid running around in a restaraunt?

Mr Snuggly wrote:
> Has anyone got Steven Seagal's phone number? Because I'd ask if I
> could kill him instead.

Everyone knows what Snuggly wants for Christmas...

www.playserver2.com/play247.asp?page=title&r=R2&title=108113

Has anyone got Steven Seagal's phone number? Because I'd ask if I could kill him instead.

But seriously, I'd only kill the kid if it was that little brat from Episode I.

"Yippeee!"

*gunshot*

The patented Keyzer Sozé approach:

Kill all 1000 hostages and the child to show the terrorists that you mean business and then go after the terrorists' families, friends and financial backers so that everyone will know the name Keyzer Sozé.

A much more interesting question is provoked by, say, the war on Iraq. Do you go to war knowing that, despite your best measures, thousands of innocent people will die. However, as a result, millions would be freed.

Sonic

Dr Duck wrote:
> When you answer with some kind of clever don't kill anyone scenario,
> do you consider yourself to be answering the question or just finding
> a novel way of not answering it but still getting to press all the fun
> computer buttons?

I think it's more of a case of people demonstrating that there are always more ways of solving a problem than those offered by just one person. Lateral thinking :)

~~Belldandy~~

When you answer with some kind of clever don't kill anyone scenario, do you consider yourself to be answering the question or just finding a novel way of not answering it but still getting to press all the fun computer buttons?

Nobody really cares if you'd actually be able to make two trips or get help from middle aged actors.

The point of the question is surely about how you'd place value on peoples' lives if forced to chose?
So the scenario really isn't important.

Kill the kid - there is no such thing as an innocent child, they're all little brats, so it's obviously a trick.

I'd ask why I need to kill the child.