Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?

[clarinet89]

Morally, I would want to kill the one guy to save the hundred. But realistically, I probably wouldn't get away with it, or I wouldn't end up killing him, or something else would go wrong. Even if I did it and got away with it, the idea of even taking someone's life is really not something that I would want to do and could probably never do it.

So no, I wouldn't kill him, because the chances of negative repercussions for me would be too great to take the risk.

[mead1]

Perhaps the one is Rambo, he's manning a fighter jet, and he's about to drop a bomb on a nest of a hundred commies.

Why the **** would I shoot rambo to save a bunch of commies?

[Chaosvermin]

Originally Posted by mead1

Why the **** would I shoot Rambo to save a bunch of commies?

Communism isn't that bad...

[mead1]

Communism is the deep-rooted evil that is destroying our way of life. Are you a communist? Hmmm?

[FishFishRevolution]

I refuse to abide any communists. Anyone suspected of having communist sympathies will be perma-banned immediately.

[OrganisM]

masturbate

[Chaosvermin]

Ooo looks like I hit something here.

[somethingillremember]

Originally Posted by Zageron

How would YOU feel if someone shot you because you were going to make a fatal mistake? Wouldn't you rather they, as other people have said, tranq you or beat you up?

For one thing, the crazy guy is still going to kill the people if you just beat the guy up (I'm going by my second story). And for another thing, maybe it would feel good to sacrifice your own life to save another's.

[somethingillremember]

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

And what is to say that killing the innocent person will ACTUALLY stop him? He could very easily turn around and trigger the bomb anyways. Killing him would, in theory, eliminate that as a possibility.

Actually, I do think this brings up a good point. Although it may be avoiding the intended question, the guy is nuts, and he may blow the bomb anyway. I probably wouldn't shoot the guy, mainly because I wouldn't have the guts. Or if I did shoot him, it would probably be with his consent (at that point I imagine one of three things would happen - the guy would start saying "no, don't shoot me", or the guy would just stare blankly, not knowing what to say, or the guy might say "Do it. We can't take the chance of letting so many die.").

[somethingillremember]

Originally Posted by Temote

Well, in this situation, I probably wouldn't bother. Someone who is 'crazy' is likely to still kill the 100 even if you kill the 1 innocent person, so there really isn't much point.

Also, I think it's hilarious that you have to keep trying to change your question because "We don't understand". Everyone understood the question perfectly well, but it was presented in a way that left multiple answers, not just the black and white answers you wanted.

I knew someone would call me on the "dont understand" bit. Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, I was just frustrated at the time.

[Bolth mannn]

I would not kill him.

if you think about it, THOUSANDS of people die every day, give or take. I would rather an extra 100 people die than kill somone else and have that feeling of knowing i killed somone, follow me around, for the rest of my life.

when you are faced with numbers, it usually makes decisions a lot harder, but i could simply never kill anyone. (unless he would destroy the whole earths population, THEN i would kill him)

[Red_Comet]

what's so bad about communism Fish?

[1mpuls3]

I would flip a coin. Chance will decide this one.

[ddr_f4n]

Remember this:

Originally Posted by Joseph Stalin

One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.

[MikeShinoda12345]

Originally Posted by Bolth mannn

I would not kill him.

if you think about it, THOUSANDS of people die every day, give or take. I would rather an extra 100 people die than kill somone else and have that feeling of knowing i killed somone, follow me around, for the rest of my life.

when you are faced with numbers, it usually makes decisions a lot harder, but i could simply never kill anyone. (unless he would destroy the whole earths population, THEN i would kill him)

And you'll go around with the feeling of knowing you indirectly killed 100 people. Which is better? Killing one person directly or being indirectly responsible for the deaths of 100? I think killing one person directly. Oh, and for your second paragraph, we see that in movies all the time

[roundebox]

who did the man in question vote for in the recent presidential election?

that is all the information i require to make a decision

[1mpuls3]

Well communism isnt bad for the people who like and agree communism is good. The ones who don't like or agree with it on the other hand get fcuked.

[StormKlowd61]

Looks like SOMEONE saw Wanted today. To answer. No, I wouldn't kill him.

[Bolth mannn]

Originally Posted by MikeShinoda12345

And you'll go around with the feeling of knowing you indirectly killed 100 people. Which is better? Killing one person directly or being indirectly responsible for the deaths of 100? I think killing one person directly. Oh, and for your second paragraph, we see that in movies all the time

To me, it wouldnt make a difference...if it was 100 people i KNEW, then that would be different, but if im not associated with those 100 people, theyll just go down as 100 other people who die everyday. id rather indirectly kill somone than kill somone.

OBVIOUS ANSWER TO QUESTION: shoot him in the arm....so he doesnt die...idiots...

[rzr]

Originally Posted by 1mpuls3

Well communism isnt bad for the people who like and agree communism is good.

Really? I never would have known!