And I ask, is it right for us to have killed Bin Laden or (hypothetically) Hitler? Justice is about harmony between the defendant and the accusers, and in killing anybody, you strip them off their fundamental right to harmony. In retrospect of the case, such as in the case we were killing someone AFTER they've killed someone (ten men, in this case), is 'revenge', which is morally unjust. So the justification shouldn't change when looking at a man who is 'about' to commit a crime; actually, more so. We should bring tyrants to justice, not execute them.
It's wrong. Nobody has the right to take somebody's life. It is not how it is supposed to be, but in order to safe 10 lives may be it can be practiced, but only in afore-mention situation. As it is immoral there should be any other solution of saving everyone's life.
The end does not justify the means, as I believe someone already said. Let's say a man needs money for food, so he robs a bank. The cops come after him, so he shoots them both. Later that night he sits down to dinner. How do you think he feels inside?
It is never morally permissible to do evil that good may come of it. Human life does not have a quantitative but rather an absolute value. Every individual human being has an infinite dignity and value and so cannot be bartered or compared with others. An individual may give his life sacrificially for the life of others, but no one has the right to take a life, howevermany lives may be saved by this action.
It's wrong to kill someone who hasn't violated/begun to violate your rights. Therefore, it is wrong to kill one man in order to save ten, unless the one man in question is about to start shooting up the ten or something. If my lack of killing one person causes ten other people to die, tough luck for them. My intent is not to save human life, but to avoid violating the non-aggression principle.
Killing anyone is wrong, regardless of what it may mean for the rest. Killing one man, to save 10 others is wrong; unless he steps up and that is what he wants. Killing a man is a sin and it is just plain wrong. Would you want someone to kill you to save 10 other people?
The man whose life is being taken has just as much right to live as the 10 men who are being saved. That man could be the man that cures cancer, or he could be a janitor. Either way, his life has meaning. It is better to not have killed a human being and let nature take its course, rather than to have blood on your hands.
By choosing to kill one man in order to save 10, you are taking the moral law into your own hands and deciding who can and cannot live. There is always something else that can be done, and by justifying murder, you are deciding not to look for that other way. The only exception to this is in the case of war, where killing the enemy (who is voluntarily fighting you) is not an act of murder.
The underlying question would be, "would you kill Elmo to save a Doctor?" Assuming that the ten men are just as capable as the one man, there is still question on whether the one man could have achieved far more than the ten men could have, and whether the ten men would be worth saving. The value of the man needs to be assessed; and even upon assuming that he does prove to be 'of poor value', upon killing him, we take away his right and potential to achieve far more than the ten men could have. Even Elmo could be a Doctor.
In general, the end does not justify the means by which you reach that end. Pushing a fat man infront of an otherwise uncontrollable locomotive is not a morally permissible act, as you are intentionally frustrating the fat man's bodily integrity. A mass-murder of 100 is not justifiable to save 101, so why would it be permissible to kill 1 and save 10? It's just a difference in mathematics, and I hardly believe morality can be reduced to quantitative inequality.
In no way is that wrong. If one man is to be killed to save the lives of others, then that is perfectly fine. Think of all the school shootings, if someone had the chance, to kill the child that committed that deed, to save their own children, I believe many would do so. We have done this many times even in the military, killing those like Osama, to save our country and further more, our people, and I believe that most of the people on here that voted that this is a "wrongful deed", was perfectly ok with that.
Human beings are just another animal. In the "wild" animals kill each other all the time. Odds are if you are a nonhuman animal and you live in the "wild" you will die by getting eaten. Human beings are supposedly "civilized" and have over time constructed rules and principles and laws in order to try to live safely and comfortably into old age, but these rules and principles and laws we give ourselves and choose to live by have no real authority over us. Man like any animal is beyond good and evil.
It depends who the people are, for instance if it was one innocent to save 10 criminals then let the criminals fry but kill 1 baddy to save 10 then sure, go knife crazy :).
If it's 1 baddy to save 10 baddys then let them all go down, save us some time but 1 innocent to save 10 innocents is the most debatable.
If I knew and liked one of the people I would try to save them, morally save the mass but where people are concerned there is selfishness and I'll always try to save 1, I know over 100 I don't.
"Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not."
In other words:
"It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish."
Now, I realize that this says "nation", but, would you rather choose one of your friends to live, or ten? I agree that it is ideal to avoid killing people all together, but if someone is threatening someone else's life, then they have to be stopped, at all costs.
If there is a victim in a mass murder that is willing to step up and put a stop to the murderer (even if he has to kill the murderer himself) in order to save all of the other victims, he is saving more lives! If someone let's the murderer go, who knows what else he'll do
There needs to be a MAYBE answer here. I think it depends on the men involved. Assuming everyone is just average, and the situation is simply "IF you kill him you save them," then the choice is easy. The death of one to save ten is the RIGHT thing to do.
However, what if the ten men being saved were child molesters? What if the one being killed was the only person who could in the end save everybody else? What if you have to give an order for the man to take a task that is certain suicide but will save many? What if it MAY save many, but the outcome is uncertain?
I would save people's live over mine. Killing one insane saving 10 innocent is more than enough reason for me. I don't know about you, if I could risk my life to save those kids at the school shooting, then we won't have this tragedy. The person who killed innocent people doesn't deserve to live, they don't have right to kill, because innocents should live on, not the insane.
I am a proud handgun owner. I have a concealed weapons permit, and I take it almost everywhere I go, so that way if I'm ever put in a situation like this I know that 10 men would be alive because of me. I mean, it really does depend on the situation, but what I think the author meant here was that if one man was going to kill 10, would you kill him to save those 10 men? My answer is this.
OK, just to plain out say this, why would anyone argue this? I mean think this through, if someone could've killed Hitler, Bin Laden, Hussein, or anyone that has committed a mass murder by school shootings, then alot of people would still be with their familes today. Try telling the people that have lost someone to one of the people mentioned above, and I bet you won't enjoy that outcome.
I think it is fair to say that most including me believe that it is immoral to take a life. However, I would rather have one man's blood on my hands than carrying on with my life with the understanding that I had the chance to say the lives of ten innocents.