Would you sacrifice the lives of 1,000 people if it meant you could save 1,000,000? - Help.com

Did you watch the recent series of Torchwood on the BBC?

no I wouldnt because their lives arent mine to sacrifice.

It depends on the situation.

The question raised in Torchwood is how would you choose the people who were to die and how could you justify that decision.

If you didn’t sacrifice the 1,000 people wouldn’t that mean you are sacrificing 1,000,000 to save the 1,000?

I would do it. If anyone that I chose to sacrifice wouldn’t give their life for 1,000,000 people they don’t deserve to live anyway. Of course I would be one of the 1,000.

What if the 1,000 were going to be part of the 1,000,000 who’d die anyway? Personally I’d sacrifice the 1,000, but then I plan to go into the military where that kind of dehumanising utilitarianism is encouraged.

The traditional question is would you sacrafice one life to save millions?, because one life is enough to raise the whole moral dilema. But, as phantom gentleman put it, if that life is not yours, then it is not yours to sacrafice. As frustrating as that might be, even taking that one life would still make you a murder regardless of your motives. Who are you to value one persons life over another?

This reminds me of Watchmen. Sacrifice millions to save billions type of question.
Short answer, yes I would.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I’m sure that phrase made it into pop culture somewhere, but I can’t remember where it was…

Dorian wrote:
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I’m sure that phrase made it into pop culture somewhere, but I can’t remember where it was…

Star Trek.

jcd wrote:

Dorian wrote:
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. I’m sure that phrase made it into pop culture somewhere, but I can’t remember where it was…

Star Trek.

Really? Wow, I’m a bigger nerd than I thought I was…

I watched an article that said they twin towers were expolded and thats why they sank rather than toppled sideways, because it was decided to kill just the people in the building rather than let them topple and kill those around it as well, that kinda put that question into perspetive for me, another friend jumped on a bomb in afganistan to save the rest of his squad, he knew it was him or all of them,

The twin towers explosion is a conspiracy theory and a lunatic one at that.

watched an article lol watched a documetry

Victoria Sponge wrote:
I watched an article that said they twin towers were expolded and thats why they sank rather than toppled sideways, because it was decided to kill just the people in the building rather than let them topple and kill those around it as well, that kinda put that question into perspetive for me, another friend jumped on a bomb in afganistan to save the rest of his squad, he knew it was him or all of them,

Setting up that amount of explosives in buildings that size would have taken days, if not weeks - they couldn’t have done it without prior knowledge of the attacks.

Dorian wrote:

Victoria Sponge wrote:
I watched an article that said they twin towers were expolded and thats why they sank rather than toppled sideways, because it was decided to kill just the people in the building rather than let them topple and kill those around it as well, that kinda put that question into perspetive for me, another friend jumped on a bomb in afganistan to save the rest of his squad, he knew it was him or all of them,

Setting up that amount of explosives in buildings that size would have taken days, if not weeks - they couldn’t have done it without prior knowledge of the attacks.

I don’t know if the theory was true but it made me think hard about that question and in that position, I guess you would have to choose the masses

Dorian wrote:

Victoria Sponge wrote:
I watched an article that said they twin towers were expolded and thats why they sank rather than toppled sideways, because it was decided to kill just the people in the building rather than let them topple and kill those around it as well, that kinda put that question into perspetive for me, another friend jumped on a bomb in afganistan to save the rest of his squad, he knew it was him or all of them,

Setting up that amount of explosives in buildings that size would have taken days, if not weeks - they couldn’t have done it without prior knowledge of the attacks.

Oh this documentry was suggesting they knew of the attacs but couldn’t stop them so I don’t think it can be true, its just a conspiricy but did make me think lots about that kind of question

In that position, I’d have scrambled the jets to shoot the planes down.

How would you choose the people selected to die?

scary doll wrote:
How would you choose the people selected to die?

Well in that position you’d try and pick people who had less life ahead of them - the elderly and the terminally ill. Otherwise the only fair way of choosing would be to pick at random, which in the case of the Twin Towers scenario Victoria mentioned would mean the people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I had this argument with someone once, who suggested that from a burning building you save an elerly man who has more chance of survival over a mother and baby with less chance of survival, based on who will have a better quality of life rather than quantity, my aunt is a nurse and they are trained in an emergency save the ones more likely to survive, so that all said, I guess you chose the ones who are healthiest

That’s triage in a nutshell

I suppse they could ask for people to come forward who want to die or are prepared to make the sacrifice.

scary doll wrote:
I suppse they could ask for people to come forward who want to die or are prepared to make the sacrifice.

Good point Victoria, I had not thought of it that way.

Would you sacrifice 1,000 20yo to save 1,000,000 60yo?

no you should not that’s playing God.
You don’t have the wisdom to know a judment call like that.

See there’s the problem, if you start to value a young person’s life over the elderly then that is the thin end of the wedge, so to speak. Then you start making all sorts of judgements of placing value on peoples lifes, which is clearly wrong. This would lead not only to discrimination based on age but also physical and mental handicaps.

The whole situation of the WTC raises an interesting point. (Leaving out the conspiracy theories for a moment) Clearly, had government leaders been alerted to the disaster quicker a decision would have been made to destroy the passenger jets. In effect this would involved such a sacrafice. Killing a few 100 in order to save thousands. However such a decision would have been made purely based on the individuals location (on the plane vs. in the building) and knowing the terrorists intentions, that those on the plane were doomed to die anyway.

Look at it this way - is it better to save 999,000 lives or none at all?

WildIrishman wrote:
See there’s the problem, if you start to value a young person’s life over the elderly then that is the thin end of the wedge, so to speak. Then you start making all sorts of judgements of placing value on peoples lifes, which is clearly wrong. This would lead not only to discrimination based on age but also physical and mental handicaps.

The whole situation of the WTC raises an interesting point. (Leaving out the conspiracy theories for a moment) Clearly, had government leaders been alerted to the disaster quicker a decision would have been made to destroy the passenger jets. In effect this would involved such a sacrafice. Killing a few 100 in order to save thousands. However such a decision would have been made purely based on the individuals location (on the plane vs. in the building) and knowing the terrorists intentions, that those on the plane were doomed to die anyway.

Would it though? Heading into conspiracy theory territory, if the American government did know about the attacks in advance, then that means someone made the decision not to shoot down the jets.

The moral dilema only arises when the minority (whether 1 or 1000) are not in danger of dying if things are left the way they are. The problem occurs when a decision is made to end a persons life who would otherwise not have died. That is murder, regardless of the motive because the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

WildIrishman wrote:
See there’s the problem, if you start to value a young person’s life over the elderly then that is the thin end of the wedge, so to speak. Then you start making all sorts of judgements of placing value on peoples lifes, which is clearly wrong. This would lead not only to discrimination based on age but also physical and mental handicaps.

This is a hypothetical question in witch shouldn’t be taken seriously. I personally believe that a childs life is worth more than my own. I would any day give my life for someone that hasn’t experienced life to the extent that I have. 20yo give their lives every day. A lot of them without a choice. That’s war. I also believe this world is based on survival of the fittest. Well until welfare. We are just another animal. Like the titanic, women and children first.

In my eyes, peoples lives have more value than others lives. Just in the, your younger and haven’t lived as much as I have point of view.

WildIrishman wrote:
The moral dilema only arises when the minority (whether 1 or 1000) are not in danger of dying if things are left the way they are. The problem occurs when a decision is made to end a persons life who would otherwise not have died. That is murder, regardless of the motive because the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

In a way, aren’t you letting 1,000,000 people die? Killing them.

God supposedly did it. so i dont see how your priest can say its wrong when its what his religion is based on.
but then again, id sacrifice 100,000 people to save a cat.

The answer is ‘no’ without reason or expansion.

The other version of this question I’ve heard is “If you had the power to cure all the world’s diseases, but to do it you’d have to take the life of one innocent child, could you do it?”

Dorian wrote:
The other version of this question I’ve heard is “If you had the power to cure all the world’s diseases, but to do it you’d have to take the life of one innocent child, could you do it?”

Victoria Sponge wrote:

Dorian wrote:
The other version of this question I’ve heard is “If you had the power to cure all the world’s diseases, but to do it you’d have to take the life of one innocent child, could you do it?”

Man that is difficult, if you had a crystal ball you could at least see if the innocent child was going to waste it’s life anyway, after saving thousands,
You got me to thinking, a guy is holding a gun to your head and he says either you die, or 10 innocent victims, die, would you let him kill 10 people(strangers) to save your own life?

No, but that’s a different situation - even if it was one other person I’d tell him to shoot me.

That’s a thought though - what if the choice was to kill one innocent person, or you and nine others?

Man this is all making my head buzz, I guess the truth of it is you wouldn’t know unless you were in that situation, some may be selfish others not, I would only want to give my life for someone that was going to really appreciate their life not to someone that would waste it away,
you seen the business where he has to shoot his brother in the foot or get shot and he shots his brother then gets shot in the foot anyway, you just don’t know what fear would drive you to do, I know I run for cover behind the closest person when a wasp is about, does that make me evil? Or human?

Victoria Sponge wrote:
Man this is all making my head buzz, I guess the truth of it is you wouldn’t know unless you were in that situation, some may be selfish others not, I would only want to give my life for someone that was going to really appreciate their life not to someone that would waste it away,
you seen the business where he has to shoot his brother in the foot or get shot and he shots his brother then gets shot in the foot anyway, you just don’t know what fear would drive you to do, I know I run for cover behind the closest person when a wasp is about, does that make me evil? Or human?

I think it makes you scared of wasps :P

Victoria Sponge wrote:

Dorian wrote:
The other version of this question I’ve heard is “If you had the power to cure all the world’s diseases, but to do it you’d have to take the life of one innocent child, could you do it?”

Man that is difficult, if you had a crystal ball you could at least see if the innocent child was going to waste it’s life anyway, after saving thousands,
You got me to thinking, a guy is holding a gun to your head and he says either you die, or 10 innocent victims, die, would you let him kill 10 people(strangers) to save your own life?

stuff that, id kill millions to save me life

courtybubble wrote:

Victoria Sponge wrote:
[quote Dorian]The other version of this question I’ve heard is “If you had the power to cure all the world’s diseases, but to do it you’d have to take the life of one innocent child, could you do it?”

Man that is difficult, if you had a crystal ball you could at least see if the innocent child was going to waste it’s life anyway, after saving thousands,
You got me to thinking, a guy is holding a gun to your head and he says either you die, or 10 innocent victims, die, would you let him kill 10 people(strangers) to save your own life?

courtybubble wrote:

Victoria Sponge wrote:

Dorian wrote:
The other version of this question I’ve heard is “If you had the power to cure all the world’s diseases, but to do it you’d have to take the life of one innocent child, could you do it?”

Man that is difficult, if you had a crystal ball you could at least see if the innocent child was going to waste it’s life anyway, after saving thousands,
You got me to thinking, a guy is holding a gun to your head and he says either you die, or 10 innocent victims, die, would you let him kill 10 people(strangers) to save your own life?

stuff that, id kill millions to save me life

Do you mind me asking how old you are Courty?

24. how come?

courtybubble wrote:

stuff that, id kill millions to save me life

I was just wondering. ^That was a little disturbing.

not really lol, i just value my life is all.

I think its more just a human survival instinct, its nature to run from things that scare us, it takes a very special person to run towards danger and make a sacrifice, it wouldn’t be a sacrifice if we all just done it,

courtybubble wrote:
not really lol, i just value my life is all.

That’s understandable. I value my girlfriend or my sisters life more than my own. I was always taught to treat others the way you would want to be treated. I’m sure their plenty of people that would give their life for you. In a way, I’m sure many people already have.

I would not, because then I can show people that their selfish lives which enrich only themselves will lead to the death of millions.

YES!!!! Torch the projects, burn them alive in Government Subsidised Housing. They are parasites and as such should be eliminated. Turn the former crack house gang related activity centers (projects) into parks…

Joz wrote:
No, I didn’t watch torchwood, because we don’t catch the bbc, I live in eastern europe. It’s something a priest friend talked about that nobody has the right to make such decisions, but I don’t agree, and I want to see other opinions.
I mean it’s somehow morally not right, but if one somehow by sacrificing a thousand can save a million souls, should he or should he not?

No. It is not in our power to decided who goes and who doesnt, nor can we say when. And which thousand would want to die for that?

Yes saving a million is better then a thousand but thats a very silly question to ask when its none of our decisions to make.

~willard~ wrote:

Joz wrote:
No, I didn’t watch torchwood, because we don’t catch the bbc, I live in eastern europe. It’s something a priest friend talked about that nobody has the right to make such decisions, but I don’t agree, and I want to see other opinions.
I mean it’s somehow morally not right, but if one somehow by sacrificing a thousand can save a million souls, should he or should he not?

No. It is not in our power to decided who goes and who doesnt, nor can we say when. And which thousand would want to die for that?

Yes saving a million is better then a thousand but thats a very silly question to ask when its none of our decisions to make.

But if we had to make the decision? If you look at it one way… You are choosing to kill one thousand or one million.

Stoli wrote:

~willard~ wrote:

Joz wrote:
No, I didn’t watch torchwood, because we don’t catch the bbc, I live in eastern europe. It’s something a priest friend talked about that nobody has the right to make such decisions, but I don’t agree, and I want to see other opinions.
I mean it’s somehow morally not right, but if one somehow by sacrificing a thousand can save a million souls, should he or should he not?

No. It is not in our power to decided who goes and who doesnt, nor can we say when. And which thousand would want to die for that?

Yes saving a million is better then a thousand but thats a very silly question to ask when its none of our decisions to make.

But if we had to make the decision? If you look at it one way… You are choosing to kill one thousand or one million.

If we HAD to? No choice or anything then i say off the thousand to keep the million…

I’d take a googol lives to save one: My dog’s!
I’d never take that one life to save that googol lives, though.

nipe i either save them all or they all die coz other wise to me that would be discrimination, the only way id agrree is if they were gay men or some people who i dont like…

~willard~ wrote:

Stoli wrote:

~willard~ wrote:

Joz wrote:
No, I didn’t watch torchwood, because we don’t catch the bbc, I live in eastern europe. It’s something a priest friend talked about that nobody has the right to make such decisions, but I don’t agree, and I want to see other opinions.
I mean it’s somehow morally not right, but if one somehow by sacrificing a thousand can save a million souls, should he or should he not?

No. It is not in our power to decided who goes and who doesnt, nor can we say when. And which thousand would want to die for that?

Yes saving a million is better then a thousand but thats a very silly question to ask when its none of our decisions to make.

But if we had to make the decision? If you look at it one way… You are choosing to kill one thousand or one million.

If we HAD to? No choice or anything then i say off the thousand to keep the million…

Well you don’t have to make a choice… You can just let a million people die. You will have to live with the guilt of killing a million people though. =/

Stoli wrote:

~willard~ wrote:

Stoli wrote:

~willard~ wrote:

Joz wrote:
No, I didn’t watch torchwood, because we don’t catch the bbc, I live in eastern europe. It’s something a priest friend talked about that nobody has the right to make such decisions, but I don’t agree, and I want to see other opinions.
I mean it’s somehow morally not right, but if one somehow by sacrificing a thousand can save a million souls, should he or should he not?

No. It is not in our power to decided who goes and who doesnt, nor can we say when. And which thousand would want to die for that?

Yes saving a million is better then a thousand but thats a very silly question to ask when its none of our decisions to make.

But if we had to make the decision? If you look at it one way… You are choosing to kill one thousand or one million.

If we HAD to? No choice or anything then i say off the thousand to keep the million…

Well you don’t have to make a choice… You can just let a million people die. You will have to live with the guilt of killing a million people though. =/

You can always deny having any choice afterwards. In fact, it’s unlikely anyone will even be aware of it, since it came to you in a dream or something.

Stoli wrote:

~willard~ wrote:

Stoli wrote:

~willard~ wrote:

Joz wrote:
No, I didn’t watch torchwood, because we don’t catch the bbc, I live in eastern europe. It’s something a priest friend talked about that nobody has the right to make such decisions, but I don’t agree, and I want to see other opinions.
I mean it’s somehow morally not right, but if one somehow by sacrificing a thousand can save a million souls, should he or should he not?

No. It is not in our power to decided who goes and who doesnt, nor can we say when. And which thousand would want to die for that?

Yes saving a million is better then a thousand but thats a very silly question to ask when its none of our decisions to make.

But if we had to make the decision? If you look at it one way… You are choosing to kill one thousand or one million.

If we HAD to? No choice or anything then i say off the thousand to keep the million…

Well you don’t have to make a choice… You can just let a million people die. You will have to live with the guilt of killing a million people though. =/

Well see either way you answer this its wrong! Whether the thousand has to die or the million., Its still people dying at the hand of someone who has no right to decided who goes or not!

If it was me, i say take me and let everyone else live!!!!!

I’d do it. I’d pick them out and do it up close and personal… I’d go to the prisons and pick out murderers. An eye for an eye mofo BANG!

why do I have to save the 1000? can I not just sacrifice the million?

~willard~ wrote:

Stoli wrote:

~willard~ wrote:

Stoli wrote:

~willard~ wrote:

Joz wrote:
No, I didn’t watch torchwood, because we don’t catch the bbc, I live in eastern europe. It’s something a priest friend talked about that nobody has the right to make such decisions, but I don’t agree, and I want to see other opinions.
I mean it’s somehow morally not right, but if one somehow by sacrificing a thousand can save a million souls, should he or should he not?

No. It is not in our power to decided who goes and who doesnt, nor can we say when. And which thousand would want to die for that?

Yes saving a million is better then a thousand but thats a very silly question to ask when its none of our decisions to make.

But if we had to make the decision? If you look at it one way… You are choosing to kill one thousand or one million.

If we HAD to? No choice or anything then i say off the thousand to keep the million…

Well you don’t have to make a choice… You can just let a million people die. You will have to live with the guilt of killing a million people though. =/

Well see either way you answer this its wrong! Whether the thousand has to die or the million., Its still people dying at the hand of someone who has no right to decided who goes or not!

Exactly. So that would make the better choice saving one million.

nope

no.

depends on how those 1000 are.

In the fictional world where this choice is presented there must be a third option. Of every two choices choose the third.

Hmmmm some people are saying humans don’t have the right to chose who lives and who dies but thats irrelevant here as people are going to die either way by your action or your inaction. Inaction is just as much a choice as action. It is not about whether we should have that power its about what if we had that power. 1000 or 1000000. I’d save the one million(If i were brave enough which hopefully i would be). It would be selfish not to. By not doing anything in a way you’re saving yourself by protecting yourself from the horrible guilt that would come from sacrificing a thousand people. Most probably wouldn’t be able to live with it.
But saving 999,000 lives while sacrificing your own mental well-being is obviously the unselfish choice.

courtybubble wrote:
stuff that, id kill millions to save me life

Completely selfsih and also completely understandable and natural. All animals are selfish…its a trait that allowed us to survive and pass on our genes. We ourselves are carrying the genes of thousands of selfish ancestors who put themselves above anyone else, which allowed them to live longer, breed successfully etc.

I said i’d save the one million and i said it was the unselfish choice. But i didn’t choose it because it was the unselfish choice, i’m not a big fan of altruism. I picked it because I think that i’d be able to cope with the guilt of sacrificing 1000 well enough to live a relatively normal life. And if I can save 999,000 people with only a small burden being gained by myself i’d do it…

Wow that was a long ramble…hope it made sense :)

to be honest humans are just going to end up killing each other anyway and our world we live in. so let em all die, i’ll just build a cave in the ground and wait till all Men die

THE HUMANS ARE DEAD

no

ĐaNi HaŦeS ŸoŪ wrote:
to be honest humans are just going to end up killing each other anyway and our world we live in. so let em all die, i’ll just build a cave in the ground and wait till all Men die

i’m only 15, do i get in, i can help rebuld all of this stuff.

Сталь wrote:

ĐaNi HaŦeS ŸoŪ wrote:
to be honest humans are just going to end up killing each other anyway and our world we live in. so let em all die, i’ll just build a cave in the ground and wait till all Men die

i’m only 15, do i get in, i can help rebuld all of this stuff.

can you re build the dodo? and if your onabout rebuilding buildings then your just destroying the palnet further, and could you do your reconstructions by hand ? other pollution - also a killer in its own right

as in the net, free flow of information, all that stuff. (i’m studeing IT)

yeh but the internet is part of whats killing man kind but i give up on this topic - ive said my peace

samsungfirsbusiness wrote:
yeh but the internet is part of whats killing man kind but i give up on this topic - ive said my peace

Democracy is what is killing mankind.

The internet is advancing us, mankind. With the flow of information and people learning stuff through it we are advancing mankind faster than ever…. But tree huggers disagree.

Stoli wrote:

samsungfirsbusiness wrote:
yeh but the internet is part of whats killing man kind but i give up on this topic - ive said my peace

Democracy is what is killing mankind.

The internet is advancing us, mankind. With the flow of information and people learning stuff through it we are advancing mankind faster than ever…. But tree huggers disagree.

i aint no tree hugger, im the knda guy that would be happy ripping out some headges in a 4×4 all day long but like i said im not arguing coz in my mind ive already won so good luck

samsungfirsbusiness wrote:

Stoli wrote:

samsungfirsbusiness wrote:
yeh but the internet is part of whats killing man kind but i give up on this topic - ive said my peace

Democracy is what is killing mankind.

The internet is advancing us, mankind. With the flow of information and people learning stuff through it we are advancing mankind faster than ever…. But tree huggers disagree.

i aint no tree hugger, im the knda guy that would be happy ripping out some headges in a 4×4 all day long but like i said im not arguing coz in my mind ive already won so good luck

And that would be the perfect example of close-minded…. To each their own.

Sorry if this is OT but samsungfirsbusiness made me think, I’m pretty sure humans have stopped evolving anyway? Well at the very least, the survival of the fittest type of evolution. The internet I think, with the ability to access information at the click of a mouse is kind of a step in a new direction of evolution. Intelligence. :)
At least I think of it this way.

Stoli wrote:

samsungfirsbusiness wrote:

Stoli wrote:

samsungfirsbusiness wrote:
yeh but the internet is part of whats killing man kind but i give up on this topic - ive said my peace

Democracy is what is killing mankind.

The internet is advancing us, mankind. With the flow of information and people learning stuff through it we are advancing mankind faster than ever…. But tree huggers disagree.

i aint no tree hugger, im the knda guy that would be happy ripping out some headges in a 4×4 all day long but like i said im not arguing coz in my mind ive already won so good luck

And that would be the perfect example of close-minded…. To each their own.

please explain further - im interested now, and tecnological advances are bad coz each time we develope something like a computer, we develope the skills to make other stuff like nuclar war heads and stuff like that - all of which kills us sooner or later

samsung, knowledge isn’t bad. It’s what you do with the knowledge you have that is important.

Pepsi wrote:
samsung, knowledge isn’t bad. It’s what you do with the knowledge you have that is important.

yup but it still kills and most of the time theres no way back, no undo or delete button

samsungfirsbusiness wrote:
yup but it still kills and most of the time theres no way back, no undo or delete button

That’s life for you. It’s unpredictable. All you can do is prepare for the worst, not prevent progression.

Nothing ever stops evolving. its simply the way of nature, the demands on our species are always changing, hence we are too.
in the grand scheme of things, evolution is fast. but in our small minds, it takes millions and millions of years, so its nothing we will ever see, but it is happening.
90% of species that were around 50 million years ago, are now not. more often than not an avolutionary pathway leads to extinction.
so of course it is ineveitable that it will with us also. nothing we do is going to stop that, well either blow up the world and become extinct, or natures way and evolution will phase us out.