Deep Philosophical Question #1: Would you kill him?

[Breakdown16]

I was almost about to say "Sacrifice one for a hundred" until I read the above three posts. Reconsidering, trying to help would probably land me in a mountain of trouble, so maybe it would be in my best interest to do nothing.

[MrRubix]

I would shoot him with a tranq.

Then collect the reward likely offered for catching the dude.

Maximal utility for me.

[funmonkey54]

Considering we live in a world where political correctness is on a rampage and anyone can sue for anything, I would leave the situation alone. In some way, I could politically cause someone else pain in this or save the life of a depressed person who didn't want to be saved. So, in fairness to those ever increasing circumstantial occurrences, I would leave the situation alone and, to my dismay, witness the death of all those people.

[devonin]

If he were clearly intending to maliciously bring about the deaths of 100 people (as in the hastily edited second example) you have a totally different kind of situation than someone accidentally through ignorance or folly allowing the deaths of 100 people.

IE. In the crazy person with the bomb example, you aren't weighing the lives of 1 innocent against 100 innocents, but 1 clearly guilty person against 100 innocents.

[GG_Guru]

I would let him live, until his death, then allow him to suffer in hell for eternity.

But thats just me of course.

Edit: Sike just playing I'd definitely kill him.

[devonin]

I get the impression that some of the people who would kill the man are doing so because they want to kill someone, not because they want to save lives.

[MooMoo_Cowfreak]

I would want to kill the innocent person, but I seriously doubt I could. I have no idea how I would handle a situation like that. I'm thinking I would hand my gun to the nearest person and have them shoot, unless for some reason I brought up the will to kill him.

[funmonkey54]

Originally Posted by devonin

If he were clearly intending to maliciously bring about the deaths of 100 people (as in the hastily edited second example) you have a totally different kind of situation than someone accidentally through ignorance or folly allowing the deaths of 100 people.

IE. In the crazy person with the bomb example, you aren't weighing the lives of 1 innocent against 100 innocents, but 1 clearly guilty person against 100 innocents.

oh. My answer was in reference to the first situation.

In the bomb situation, I would like this question answered. Why can I not just shoot the man wearing the bomb? He cannot kill the people if he is dead and unable to trigger the bomb. 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.

[Grandiagod]

i'd stand back and laugh

[rzr]

It really depends. I mean, if someone I knew was in the 100 people, I'd stop it (depending on who it was, lol). But, I have no heart, so I would probably let it happen. Or maybe kill the guy just for the sake of killing someone. ut, if it affected me in any way, I would stop it from happening. You get that?

[arrekusuof93]

My first concern is my own survival and well-being. If I shoot the man and subsequently save 100 people, then I could still be imprisoned. It's not clear whether or not I would be killed by the resulting meltdown if I don't shoot him. If I won't be killed then the lives of 100 strangers are not worth my going to prison. This is all assuming the man is completely ignorant (thereby innocent) of what he is about to do. If a man was able to be proven guilty of intentionally trying to kill hundreds, then I would shoot him.

[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?

[FuzenAkuma]

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

oh. My answer was in reference to the first situation.

In the bomb situation, I would like this question answered. Why can I not just shoot the man wearing the bomb? He cannot kill the people if he is dead and unable to trigger the bomb. 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.

I think we should assume in this case that the bomb is a time bomb that can ONLY be stopped by the man with it, and it has around 15 seconds remaining. Since it's a hypothetical situation, we should say that the ONLY way the bomb can be stopped will be for the man to say a secret code that ONLY he knows, and the ONLY way he will do it is if you shoot an innocent person. This way, if you kill the man with the bomb, the bomb will still go off, killing the 100 people.

Whether he goes against his word or not... I guess that's for you to decide, unless somethingillremember says he won't.

Anyway, with my above assumptions including the assumptions that he won't go back on his word and I can choose who to kill, I would simply kill the oldest -looking person I could find in the 10 seconds. Sure, it may be wrong to kill the elderly, but they've already lived their lives, while younger folk may have many more years to go.

[OrganisM]

These situations that people come up with are typically so one dimensional there's no way to really argue them because the circumstances aren't a complete set and there's too much guesswork involved as to what happened/would happen.

[Tr44nc33]

Thinking of the Overpopulation problem, i would let the 100 people die.

[rzr]

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?

You wouldn't feel anything, lol. You'd be dead.

[Necros140606]

after the universe will shrink none of this will make any sense. this situation would probably feel as an excuse to kill someone and try out what it feels like. also, the kill1 save100 is the general guideline for almost any government on earth. it's generally the best thing to do, even though i'd probably be more concerned about the value of the one dude against the 100 dudes. but any judgement is plain relative and subjective, hence why i would fall into nonsense.

[Temote]

Originally Posted by somethingillremember

*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?

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.

[Svaz]

If he's too negligent to utilize basic safety information for his job (if I know it, why doesn't he? how the hell did he get this job?), how innocent is he then? If he's sneaking his way into jobs better done by someone else (me), at the cost of other people's well being (a nuclear powerplant being destroyed will affect more than the 100 people it kills rofl, ohi fallout) I feel no pity for him. I'm sure I can find some things that were overlooked during his hire.

This post used the term 'ignorant' in reference to this fellow, and I agree with this assessment. He's too ignorant, in fact, to be considered a viable candidate for his job. I bet his house isn't even properly equipped to protect himself!

In short, I feel that a stupid person handling dangerous things is just as bad as someone with ill intent handling them.

In the second edit, I would absolve myself from the situation, or try to stop this criminal by other means; I'm the goddamn Batman.

[tinefico]

So... the guy don't know that he will kill 100 persons. So if you kill him it's like killing for nothing. But, if you don't kill him, 100 persons will die.
Huh O.o