In an earlier post, Nick mentions a terrorist who might be a
threat to 1,000 people. If we were to “[seek] and [terminate]” this terrorist,
we could stop the mayhem. Let’s change this up, though. Suppose this terrorist
is the leader of a major fear-instilling organization. Now, we have one of two
options: Kill the terrorist and any relevant information he may have regarding
any future attacks, or press the terrorist for information. The twist is, the
terrorist is the weapon. If the
terrorist is killed, the weapon is deactivated and the 1,000 people survive.
However, if the terrorist is pressed for information, potentially saving 10,000
or more lives in planned future attacks, the terrorist’s biological systems
will detect he is alive and will trigger the weapon, therefore killing 1,000
people. How do we proceed? Kill the terrorist, save 1,000 people and wait for
10,000 people to die? Or do we press the terrorist, let 1,000 people die, and hope that the terrorist will comply and
give us information about future attacks?
This is a tough situation. I think many people would gravitate toward the idea of saving 10,000 people rather than 1,000, because this is a very large difference in the number of deaths that would occur. It is difficult to make this decision, because when letting the terrorist live and allowing 1,000 people to die, it is not guaranteed that you will be able to save the 10,000 people. The terrorist may not give you any information about future attacks, despite being pressed for it. If the terrorist is killed, there is a 100% chance that you can save the 1,000 people, whereas if the terrorist lives, there is no definite possibility that you will save anyone. I think this decision comes down to whether or not you are willing to take the chance to save more lives, or if you want to play if safe.
ReplyDelete