Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?

somethingillremember · 12-30-2008, 02:22 AM

In response to "let me make something clear", posted by a mod telling us that we need to start discussions with more, well, discussing, I decided to start a series of philosophical questions to get people debating. This is the first.

So, you're in a tight situation. There is a man working for a Chemical plant, but he is working from home. You know that in 10 seconds, because of the way he is operating things, he will cause a nuclear meltdown that will destroy the whole plant and probably kill over 100 people. You also know that the man currently has a couple hundred pounds of gunpowder in his basement (he is LEGALLY (but dangerously) holding it for a local firework factory). You have a gun, and have a clear shot at the gunpowder through one of the basement windows. Shooting the gunpowder and killing the man in the explosion is the only way to save the over 100 people in the plant.

Ignoring the fact that gunpowder probably wouldn't blow up if you shot it, and that it's totally ridiculous to have so much of the stuff in your basement (give me a break, it's harder than it seems thinking of these situations), would you do it? Would you kill one innocent man to save 100?

PEOPLE, PLEASE GET THIS STRAIGHT. THIS SITUATION IS PURELY HYPOTHETICAL, AND IN NO WAY WOULD EVER HAPPEN. THE POINT IS NOT TO FIND A WAY OUT OF THE SITUATION, BUT TO DISCUSS WEATER AN INNOCENT PERSON SHOULD BE KILLED IF IT WOULD SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY OTHERS.
Anyway, haven't you guys seen the Dark Knight? Read my second edit for a slightly better story.

*EDIT*
Okay, I know this is ridiculous, but you get the idea. Also, something to think about: would you have the GUTS to kill the guy? Is it RIGHT to kill him? Would you feel more guilty if you didn't or if you did?

Anyway, continue, I want to see where this goes.

*SECOND EDIT*
Gah! I can't get people to understand this! Okay, lets change up the story. There is a crazy guy. You have a gun. Crazy guy (who you cannot kill at the moment) will kill 100 people (he has a bomb) unless you kill some innocent person within the next ten seconds. Got it?

Chaosvermin · 12-30-2008, 02:33 AM

I would kill him.
To save 100 people by the death of 1 man I would, it would be better knowing you saved 100 people than knowing you could have saved the lives of 100 people but did nothing to do so.

NFD · 12-30-2008, 02:39 AM

I'd kill him for the sake of saving the other 100 people's lives. If somebody is going to kill other people, they should be killed first.

**dore** · 12-30-2008, 03:20 AM

The premise is pretty ridiculous, if I had such an indirect impact on the situation I would leave it alone. Especially because I probably wouldn't have tracer rounds to ignite the gunpowder.

If I was faced with killing 1 or killing 100 in a more direct way then I'd kill the 1, though if it was a 1 or 100 decision chances are the 1 would be someone I knew and the 100 would be 100 people I didn't, complicating the decision. Looking at it as numbers I'd kill the 1 but chances are any situation where I'd be presented that choice the people involved would mean something more and I would just go on my gut instinct at the time.

somethingillremember · 12-30-2008, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFD

I'd kill him for the sake of saving the other 100 people's lives. If somebody is going to kill other people, they should be killed first.

But he's not killing the other people on purpose. Sure, he may not be the best guys to work there, but he hasn't done anything wrong. Really if you think about it, it would be the person-who-hired-him's fault.

NFD · 12-30-2008, 04:04 AM

Well, if there was a possiblity if this happening, why was he put in charge of what he's in charge of, which ties in with what you said about who hired him, but still. We should be able to leave a person to their own devices and trust them not to, accident or not, kill 100 people.

**travman301** · 12-30-2008, 04:18 AM

Well, if you know what he is doing wrong then you can most likely stop what he is doing rather then killing him.

Temote · 12-30-2008, 04:22 AM

I don't think it would be necessary to kill him, all things considered.

Assuming we have a clear shot at the gunpowder in his basement should mean that we have a clear shot of his home, meaning that instead of forcing him to die, say, shoot out a nearby window or something similar to get his attention and force him away from his work. If we were a good distance away, one could peg his leg, and if we were close, we could subdue him physically, since being hit with a gun is definitely not a nice thing. Situation handled and no one has to die.

Or just shoot out a power line. That might work, too.

somethingillremember · 12-30-2008, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travman301

Well, if you know what he is doing wrong then you can most likely stop what he is doing rather then killing him.

The point is that you can't. You've got ten seconds.

Really, the whole point is that there are one hundred people that will die unless you kill someone totally innocent.

**ice_lazer3** · 12-30-2008, 04:48 AM

Shoot the guy with the bomb.

somethingillremember · 12-30-2008, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ice_lazer3

Shoot the guy with the bomb.

If you read it, I said you couldn't.

Tr44nc33 · 12-30-2008, 07:04 AM

I would say "Stop!"
If he doesn't stop in 3 secs, i kill him.

**pokelda** · 12-30-2008, 07:14 AM

whats so interesting about this thread

~kitty~ · 12-30-2008, 07:53 AM

Good chance there's another way to try this situation.

OrganisM · 12-30-2008, 08:16 AM

Take a flamethrower and ****ing torch teh werld.

ShAiOnEi · 12-30-2008, 09:52 AM

That guys is ****ing stupid kill him he would probably kill himself knowing how stupid he is. Seriously this discussion is bull**** I could come up with any kind of situation that's entirely out of context. Lets think realistically here what are the chances of someone this stupid doing this?

**Red_Comet** · 12-30-2008, 10:01 AM

it seems to me that you are a guest at his house because you are so far away from the plant as it's not stated, that there should ALWAYS be a person at the plant to make sure something like THIS doesn't happen. thus making this a truly hypothetical situation. So it won't matter as to the outcome, thus you could let it meltdown as modern nuclear powerplants have something called a sarcophagus to prevent any nuclear radiation from escaping.

So I'd just sit back and have my tea in hand that the kind man gave me when he invited me over to oversea his little project of fireworks end of that.

**devonin** · 12-30-2008, 10:58 AM

Utilitarians would kill 1 person to save 100
Kantians would not kill anybody

Most people tend towards being utilitarians, as evidenced by this thread.

Kilroy_X (He needs to come back to the forum) would suggest that you simply don't do anything and aren't to blame for any of the consequences.

jellygod · 12-30-2008, 11:31 AM

i wouldnt do anything, people die everyday. How is it my responsibility to stop it? As devonin said, id probably be like kilroy and just be like "eh whatever i'm going home"

shad0wlord · 12-30-2008, 11:36 AM

I wouldn't kill him.

If I don't kill him, I'm not effected.

If I do kill him, Theres the threat of being caught and arrested.

Personally I wouldn't want to risk my own well-being.

12-30-2008, 02:39 AM	#3
NFD FFR Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: I see us on a beach down in, Mexico Age: 31 Posts: 4,715	Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him? I'd kill him for the sake of saving the other 100 people's lives. If somebody is going to kill other people, they should be killed first. __________________

12-30-2008, 03:20 AM	#4
dore caveman pornstar Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: ridin on a unicorn Age: 33 Posts: 6,317	Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him? The premise is pretty ridiculous, if I had such an indirect impact on the situation I would leave it alone. Especially because I probably wouldn't have tracer rounds to ignite the gunpowder. If I was faced with killing 1 or killing 100 in a more direct way then I'd kill the 1, though if it was a 1 or 100 decision chances are the 1 would be someone I knew and the 100 would be 100 people I didn't, complicating the decision. Looking at it as numbers I'd kill the 1 but chances are any situation where I'd be presented that choice the people involved would mean something more and I would just go on my gut instinct at the time. __________________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IREnpHco9mw

12-30-2008, 04:04 AM	#6
NFD FFR Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: I see us on a beach down in, Mexico Age: 31 Posts: 4,715	Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him? Well, if there was a possiblity if this happening, why was he put in charge of what he's in charge of, which ties in with what you said about who hired him, but still. We should be able to leave a person to their own devices and trust them not to, accident or not, kill 100 people. __________________

12-30-2008, 04:18 AM	#7
travman301 #swagdog Join Date: Mar 2004 Age: 33 Posts: 2,641	Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him? Well, if you know what he is doing wrong then you can most likely stop what he is doing rather then killing him.

12-30-2008, 04:22 AM	#8
Temote FFR Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Age: 34 Posts: 748	Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him? I don't think it would be necessary to kill him, all things considered. Assuming we have a clear shot at the gunpowder in his basement should mean that we have a clear shot of his home, meaning that instead of forcing him to die, say, shoot out a nearby window or something similar to get his attention and force him away from his work. If we were a good distance away, one could peg his leg, and if we were close, we could subdue him physically, since being hit with a gun is definitely not a nice thing. Situation handled and no one has to die. Or just shoot out a power line. That might work, too.

12-30-2008, 02:22 AM	#1
somethingillremember FFR Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 106	Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him? In response to "let me make something clear", posted by a mod telling us that we need to start discussions with more, well, discussing, I decided to start a series of philosophical questions to get people debating. This is the first. So, you're in a tight situation. There is a man working for a Chemical plant, but he is working from home. You know that in 10 seconds, because of the way he is operating things, he will cause a nuclear meltdown that will destroy the whole plant and probably kill over 100 people. You also know that the man currently has a couple hundred pounds of gunpowder in his basement (he is LEGALLY (but dangerously) holding it for a local firework factory). You have a gun, and have a clear shot at the gunpowder through one of the basement windows. Shooting the gunpowder and killing the man in the explosion is the only way to save the over 100 people in the plant. Ignoring the fact that gunpowder probably wouldn't blow up if you shot it, and that it's totally ridiculous to have so much of the stuff in your basement (give me a break, it's harder than it seems thinking of these situations), would you do it? Would you kill one innocent man to save 100? PEOPLE, PLEASE GET THIS STRAIGHT. THIS SITUATION IS PURELY HYPOTHETICAL, AND IN NO WAY WOULD EVER HAPPEN. THE POINT IS NOT TO FIND A WAY OUT OF THE SITUATION, BUT TO DISCUSS WEATER AN INNOCENT PERSON SHOULD BE KILLED IF IT WOULD SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY OTHERS. Anyway, haven't you guys seen the Dark Knight? Read my second edit for a slightly better story. EDIT Okay, I know this is ridiculous, but you get the idea. Also, something to think about: would you have the GUTS to kill the guy? Is it RIGHT to kill him? Would you feel more guilty if you didn't or if you did? Anyway, continue, I want to see where this goes. SECOND EDIT Gah! I can't get people to understand this! Okay, lets change up the story. There is a crazy guy. You have a gun. Crazy guy (who you cannot kill at the moment) will kill 100 people (he has a bomb) unless you kill some innocent person within the next ten seconds. Got it? Last edited by somethingillremember; 12-30-2008 at 11:16 AM.. Reason: It is ridiculous

12-30-2008, 04:48 AM	#10
ice_lazer3 ICE ICE BABY Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 173	Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him? Shoot the guy with the bomb.

12-30-2008, 07:04 AM	#12
Tr44nc33 FFR Player Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 152	Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him? I would say "Stop!" If he doesn't stop in 3 secs, i kill him. __________________

12-30-2008, 07:14 AM	#13
pokelda ⁽ ´ཀ`⁾ Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: It is a mystery. Posts: 3,876	Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him? whats so interesting about this thread __________________

12-30-2008, 07:53 AM	#14
~kitty~ FFR Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Age: 31 Posts: 988	Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him? Good chance there's another way to try this situation.

12-30-2008, 08:16 AM	#15
OrganisM FFR Player Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Nesoi, Olympus System Posts: 2,644	Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him? Take a flamethrower and **ing torch teh werld. __________________ . Originally Posted by jewpinthethird[link]: "If you get stung by enough bees you turn into a bee, because the venom gets into the blood stream which spreads bee DNA throughout your entire body... changing your genetic structure into a bee's. Every year roughly 125 people in America are turned into bees this way." Originally Posted by MrRubix*[link]: "Do you basically bukkake-paint your walls every time you jack it?"* Originally Posted by All_That_Chaz[link]: "My pity-sex depreciates at a rate of 5% annually."

12-30-2008, 09:52 AM	#16
ShAiOnEi FFR Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 1,109	Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him? That guys is **ing stupid kill him he would probably kill himself knowing how stupid he is. Seriously this discussion is bull** I could come up with any kind of situation that's entirely out of context. Lets think realistically here what are the chances of someone this stupid doing this? __________________ I love my son Auron Epic thread killer Last edited by ShAiOnEi; 12-30-2008 at 09:55 AM..

12-30-2008, 10:01 AM	#17
Red_Comet Not your typical member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: in my Freightliner Century class Age: 35 Posts: 341	Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him? it seems to me that you are a guest at his house because you are so far away from the plant as it's not stated, that there should ALWAYS be a person at the plant to make sure something like THIS doesn't happen. thus making this a truly hypothetical situation. So it won't matter as to the outcome, thus you could let it meltdown as modern nuclear powerplants have something called a sarcophagus to prevent any nuclear radiation from escaping. So I'd just sit back and have my tea in hand that the kind man gave me when he invited me over to oversea his little project of fireworks end of that.

12-30-2008, 10:58 AM	#18
devonin Very Grave Indeed Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Age: 40 Posts: 10,098	Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him? Utilitarians would kill 1 person to save 100 Kantians would not kill anybody Most people tend towards being utilitarians, as evidenced by this thread. Kilroy_X (He needs to come back to the forum) would suggest that you simply don't do anything and aren't to blame for any of the consequences.

12-30-2008, 11:31 AM	#19
jellygod FFR Player Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Michigan Age: 34 Posts: 1,703	Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him? i wouldnt do anything, people die everyday. How is it my responsibility to stop it? As devonin said, id probably be like kilroy and just be like "eh whatever i'm going home" __________________ RETIRED ___________________________ Best AAAs- Monstrous Turtles, Get down Styles- index,spread Tier Points: 148 Rank 8 in regional ranking(Great Lakes) "Never argue with stupid people, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

12-30-2008, 11:36 AM	#20
shad0wlord FFR Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Age: 31 Posts: 247	Re: Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him? I wouldn't kill him. If I don't kill him, I'm not effected. If I do kill him, Theres the threat of being caught and arrested. Personally I wouldn't want to risk my own well-being. __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)