do the ends justify the means?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-29 06:26pm

Exonerate wrote:Does letting people die make me a murderer?

Yes, because once youre given the choice its no longer a choice of whether people die, its who.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-07-29 09:44pm

kojikun wrote:
Exonerate wrote:Does letting people die make me a murderer?
Yes, because once youre given the choice its no longer a choice of whether people die, its who.

True, but no matter the decision, people are going to die, except I will be acitvely killing people as opposed to letting them die. Which makes me feel better.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-29 09:57pm

Exonerate wrote:True, but no matter the decision, people are going to die, except I will be acitvely killing people as opposed to letting them die. Which makes me feel better.

I don't think it was mandated that you had to knife anyone. Just decide.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-07-29 11:06pm

Exonerate wrote:No. Who am I to end a hundred thousand lives? I don't think I would be able to face myself if I did that. Even with a cure, how long would it take to eradicate AIDS? A cure is not a magic bullet, it doesn't automatically make AIDS disappear.

This situation is a magic bullet. You say "Yes," 100,000 people fall dead instantly, and everybody with AIDS is 100 percent fine.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-07-30 01:05am

hypothetical situations are such fun

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-30 01:07am

Enforcer Talen wrote:hypothetical situations are such fun

They're a moral thought game. They explore who you are, without a required foundation in reality.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-07-30 01:12am

yep ^^

and, this unreality has aids cured instantly, when the 100k drop dead. instantly.

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2003-07-30 01:13am

I think the people who made their decision - be it yes or no - based on the idea that the cure would be realistic are missing the point. Andrew J said it - the situation is a magic bullet. You can end AIDS forever, but to do so you have to sacrifice the 100,000 people.

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2003-07-30 05:42am

Exonerate wrote:True, but no matter the decision, people are going to die, except I will be acitvely killing people as opposed to letting them die. Which makes me feel better.

The thing is, in this hypothetical situation, by not choosing the death of a hundred thousand, you choose the death of +20 million.

Or putting it another way: you can choose to either shoot through one bystander in order to take down a terrorist, or choose to let the terrorist detonate his bomb and kill over two hundred bystanders.

victorhadin · Post by **victorhadin** » 2003-07-30 07:47am

Gambler wrote:
victorhadin wrote:The randomness of the 100'000 actually makes it easier, as I see it. It absolves you of some of the personal feelings you will have acting against you, since you at no point have to choose.

Hell yes. I'd certainly go through with it. I can't see how anyone wouldn't.
I have stated above that under normal circumstances I wouldn't do it and please don't act like the answer to this moral question is somehow so OBVIOUS that you can't see how anyone wouldn't agree with you.
And if I am allowed the question, how does the randomness make the decision in this dilema any easier? It would maybe be easier for your consciousness in a psicological way because you don't point the finger to the person and say "You", but the effects of your decision remain the same, 100.000 innocents die because of your decision and they aren't just a number on a piece of paper you can throw away and forget. In a way the randomness should make your decision harder, because you don't get to pick people which under such a circumstance you could consider "expendable", like all sorts of criminal scum (rapists,murderers and the like).

Oh stop being so bloody hypersensitive. I was talking about my own personal views, not how I feel about yours.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-07-30 08:09am

There's a big dilemma here. What if there's someone within the 100,000 who would cure AIDS if they live?

In other words, would you still kill all these people knowing that you might be killing the person who develops a cure you're killing 100,000 people for?

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2003-07-30 08:23am

BoredShirtless wrote:There's a big dilemma here. What if there's someone within the 100,000 who would cure AIDS if they live?

In other words, would you still kill all these people knowing that you might be killing the person who develops a cure you're killing 100,000 people for?

Here's another one. What if someone within the 100,000 is the next Hitler who's going to kill +20 million more people?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-07-30 08:30am

Lord of the Farce wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:There's a big dilemma here. What if there's someone within the 100,000 who would cure AIDS if they live?

In other words, would you still kill all these people knowing that you might be killing the person who develops a cure you're killing 100,000 people for?
Here's another one. What if someone within the 100,000 is the next Hitler who's going to kill +20 million more people?

There's no additional dilemma in that:
1. Kill 100,000 people to cure AIDS
2. You might end up killing another Adolf Hitler

That isn't another dilemma, that's a potential bonus.

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2003-07-30 08:36am

BoredShirtless wrote:There's no additional dilemma in that:
1. Kill 100,000 people to cure AIDS
2. You might end up killing another Adolf Hitler

That isn't another dilemma, that's a potential bonus.

I was pointing out how your big dilemma is in effect betting the lives of +20 million on something with around 0.00167% chance of occurance.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-07-30 08:59am

Lord of the Farce wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:There's no additional dilemma in that:
1. Kill 100,000 people to cure AIDS
2. You might end up killing another Adolf Hitler

That isn't another dilemma, that's a potential bonus.
I was pointing out how your big dilemma is in effect betting the lives of +20 million on something with around 0.00167% chance of occurance.

Where did you get 0.00167% from? Please submit your working out for this probability for review.

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2003-07-30 09:09am

BoredShirtless wrote:
Lord of the Farce wrote:I was pointing out how your big dilemma is in effect betting the lives of +20 million on something with around 0.00167% chance of occurance.
Where did you get 0.00167% from? Please submit your working out for this probability for review.

100,000 / 6,000,000,000 = 1.67e-5 (after rounding up)

1.67e-5 * 100 = 0.00167

That result, as one can tell, is made under the assumption that every single one of the 100,000 (out of the +6 billion of the world's population) is someone who would cure AIDS if they live.

FBHthelizardmage · Post by **FBHthelizardmage** » 2003-07-30 09:19am

I think after a lot of soul searching I'd do it.

I doubt I'd be able to live with my self afterwords. But I'd still do it.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-07-30 09:44am

Lord of the Farce wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Lord of the Farce wrote:I was pointing out how your big dilemma is in effect betting the lives of +20 million on something with around 0.00167% chance of occurance.
Where did you get 0.00167% from? Please submit your working out for this probability for review.
100,000 / 6,000,000,000 = 1.67e-5 (after rounding up)

1.67e-5 * 100 = 0.00167

That result, as one can tell, is made under the assumption that every single one of the 100,000 (out of the +6 billion of the world's population) is someone who would cure AIDS if they live.

Yep, that assumption was made. Your attempted nitpick, that I shouldn't have used "big" in "big dilemma": I didn't use "big" in a mathematical context, I used "big" to add literal drama.

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2003-07-30 10:08pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Lord of the Farce wrote:100,000 / 6,000,000,000 = 1.67e-5 (after rounding up)

1.67e-5 * 100 = 0.00167

That result, as one can tell, is made under the assumption that every single one of the 100,000 (out of the +6 billion of the world's population) is someone who would cure AIDS if they live.
Yep, that assumption was made. Your attempted nitpick, that I shouldn't have used "big" in "big dilemma": I didn't use "big" in a mathematical context, I used "big" to add literal drama.

Where did I attempt to nitpick by saying that you "shouldn't have used "big" in "big dilemma""? It seems like somebody misinterpreted my thinly veiled point about the percentage being probably ten thousand times too generous.

EDIT: Oops, looks like gremlins got into the gears. Snip that bit about "percentage being probably ten thousand times too generous".

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-07-31 01:14am

Perhaps this might be another dilemma: Say we need to kill 100,000 specific people, and killing them would reduce the world to anarchy.

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2003-07-31 02:22am

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:Perhaps this might be another dilemma: Say we need to kill 100,000 specific people, and killing them would reduce the world to anarchy.

In this case, since the chances are that a lot more than +20 million people are going to get killed (through war, famine and diseases, and any WMD that gets loose), then the answer is a clear no to the killing of the required 100,000 people.