Thursday, December 4, 2014
Kill One to Save a Thousand?
To build off of our discussion about the trolley problem I am curious as to whether or not we believe it would be justifiable, as my title suggests, to kill one person to save a thousand others? The scenario I am inclined to think of is terrorism in the modern day. If, lets say, a terror plot was uncovered to commit another large scale attack on the United States and we were able to determine who the mastermind behind the plot was, would you be able to justify the active seeking and termination of that individual in order to possibly save thousands of American lives? Would the number of lives saved necessarily have to be as many as 1,000? Could it be as few as 100? Or even 10? To further this thought a little more, could you justify "torturing" someone for the same outcome? Can you justify cruelty and pain inflicted upon one to save many others? Initially the logic doesn't seem to be all that different from the trolley problem but I am curious to hear what everyone else thinks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is absolutely justified to kill that one person because their aims have to be considered. This is because they have the horrible intention to end other peoples’ lives. In neither the surgeon nor trolley case both the one person and the five people did not have bad intentions that we know of. To reiterate, if the one person with the healthy organs was a terrorist, would this change the ethical issues of killing them against their will for their organs? It is justified to kill the "mastermind" behind the plan even if their plan was to kill simply one person for no reason. Torturing a human is only justified if they had planned on hurting other innocent individuals, which is precisely what terrorists do.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou raise an excellent point, Nick. I think that the main premise of this example is, though, that though each person has an infinite worth, it moves into the utilitarian aspect when looking at the trolley problem, and a question of rights with the surgeon problem. With a terrorist, there are many hidden issues which can be pressed here. For example, let’s say this terrorist is the head of a major organization responsible for instilling fear in many more than 1,000 people. Would we be justified in killing him on sight, when we know we can capture him and glean information from him?
ReplyDeleteAnother issue the terrorist example provides is the individual is seen as an immediate threat thus it would be justified to kill this one individual being that, as Payal mentioned, his intentions were to the lives of the innocent from the start. I don't think many will argue against the fact of protecting one from immediate harm. American society would most likely justify the actions and even view those who carried out the plan as heroic.
ReplyDeleteI think this question is very interesting and I agree with what Payal stated about the terrorist’s death being justified. This goes along the idea of death row in the US, as it challenges our ethical values as a nation. Is torturing an individual by life in jail better than their immediate killing? I think it all depends on a situation by situation basis, where if others were harmed or put at risk in the individual’s crime or attempted crime it seems to be more justified to kill this being and the value of their life is lessened by society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Payal that you can justify killing the one terrorist because he has bad intentions. This even may make it must easier to do. To answer Nick's other question I have a hard time justifying inflicting pain on someone to save hundreds of other people. To me this scenario seems much worse than killing someone because you have to watch them suffer. However, I suppose the utilitarian concept still applies here. I think I would just feel guiltier if someone had to be tortured.
ReplyDeleteThere is a Bible passage in Genesis that approaches this question in the opposite manner. I think it's fitting to look at as a comparison. It also shows the Christian way to deal with this sort of question, a view that I think is important because many American values do reflect Christian ideology.
ReplyDelete"Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” 26 And the Lord said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.” Abraham keeps repeating the question, decreasing the number of righteous people in the city. God always replies that he will save the whole city for those few righteous. In this case, I understand that righteous is not the same as innocent, but I argue that the same "rules" apply.
While it's not focusing on the killing of one for the protection of many, it is interesting to see the complexity of the question and how this passage potentially flips the "answer" on its head. Thoughts?
I really like your comparison Meaghan. I think it shows a more compassionate approach to a situation relatively similar to Nick's scenario. In the Bible passage however, I interpreted it as though the wicked people were not putting the righteous peoples' lives at risk. Nevertheless, I think it helps to give us a different way of viewing the situation. If in fact, lives were at risk because of one evil person, I believe getting rid of that person can be justified. Whether or not that person must be killed I believe depends on the situation. However, I find it hard to justify torturing. This is just a personal preference but I really dislike the idea of torture even when it may seem necessary. Referring back to the Bible passage, based on His undying compassion, I don't believe God would ever find torturing justifiable either.
ReplyDelete